“The film may as well have been officially titled Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula, because it so unmistakably bears the stamp of its director.” — Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know about the Count from Transylvania author Bruce Scivally

The Digital Bits and History, Legacy & Showmanship are pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the 25th anniversary of the release of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Francis Ford Coppola’s take on the classic horror icon featuring Gary Oldman in the title role.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula, which also starred Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins and Keanu Reeves — and winner of numerous awards including three Oscars and five Saturns — opened 25 years ago this autumn. For the occasion, The Bits features a Q&A with film historian Bruce Scivally, who discusses the film’s virtues, shortcomings and influence. [Read on here...]

Bruce Scivally is the author of Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know about the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 2015). His other books include Booze, Bullets & Broads: The Story of Matt Helm, Superspy of the Mad Men Era (Henry Gray, 2013), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), and (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He is Vice President of New Dimension Media of Chicago, Illinois.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think Bram Stoker’s Dracula should be remembered on its 25th anniversary?

Bruce Scivally: Bram Stoker’s Dracula was a game changer. It was unlike any Dracula film that had come before, and established a tone and style that redefined cinematic vampires. Screenwriter James V. Hart returned to Stoker’s original novel for inspiration, but at the same time borrowed ideas from Dan Curtis’ 1973 TV movie (also titled Bram Stoker’s Dracula) and the vampire novels of Anne Rice. From Curtis (and teleplay writer Richard Matheson), he borrowed the idea that Mina is a reincarnation of Dracula’s lost love from centuries before. From Anne Rice, he borrowed the notion that the vampire doesn’t merely turn into a bat, but rather transforms into a monstrous human — bat hybrid, like the winged demons from Gustave Dore’s illustrations for Dante’s Inferno (just Google “The Inferno, Canto 22 – Gustave Dore”). Add to that costume designer Eiko Ishioka’s inspirations — Dracula’s Samurai-inspired red armor, his scarlet silk kimono, his sunglasses, not to mention Mina’s gowns and Lucy’s white lace ruffled burial gown, and a score by Wojciech Kilar that goes from pulse-pounding martial music to lush romanticism, and the use of old-fashioned in-camera effects, and the entire film seems at once outmoded and futuristic. In its way, it was the first Steampunk film, and every vampire movie since has been influenced by its style.

Coate: What did you think of the film when you (first) saw it?

Scivally: Bram Stoker’s Dracula is one of those films that I disliked on first viewing, but have come to appreciate over time, which is an indication of how much it was ahead of its time. Coppola’s operatic approach to the material — rather than the more traditionally Gothic take of the Universal and Hammer horror films, or the 1979 Dracula starring Frank Langella (still my personal favorite) — was more than a fresh approach; it was absolutely revolutionary. Knowing more now about the backstory of the film and the intent of the filmmakers, I can appreciate it for its out-of-the-box thinking; at the time, I was too entrenched in the tried-and-true vampire formula to get it.

Coate: In what way was Francis Coppola an ideal choice to direct Bram Stoker’s Dracula, and where does the film rank among his body of work?

Scivally: Coppola was ideal to direct Bram Stoker’s Dracula because it was one of his favorite novels — he used to read it to his young charges when he worked at a summer camp in his youth — but he was enough of an iconoclast to think way outside the box instead of falling into the tried-and-true vampire/horror movie tropes. It’s not his greatest film — how can you top The Godfather, The Conversation or Apocalypse Now? — but it came after a string of films that were box-office disappointments: Gardens of Stone, Tucker: The Man and His Dream, and the lamentable Godfather III. Coppola could have made a straightforward horror film out of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, but he didn’t; he made something fresh and exciting, not just another scary movie but rather a Coppola film, and a pretty extraordinary one, at that.

Coate: Is Bram Stoker’s Dracula a significant (horror) film in any way?

Scivally: Bram Stoker’s Dracula is significant in the way that The Exorcist and The Shining were significant, in showing that a horror story can be worthy of an A-list cast and production values, and that a truly imaginative filmmaker can take even a story as hoary as Dracula and give it a new lustre.

Coate: They’ve been making Dracula movies since about as long as they’ve been making movies. What is it about the character and concept that storytellers find so alluring?

Scivally: Dracula was written at the end of the Victorian era, which we think of as a buttoned-down, sexually repressed time. Yet the novel seethes with sexuality and sexual symbolism (even the vampire’s bite is, after all, a penetration), which makes it feel very modern today. In addition, there’s a theme of fear of foreign invaders (sound familiar?) and a breaking down of the old status quo (Make Britain Great Again!); even Mina is a representation of what was then called "the new woman," i.e., an independent woman who would work in an office, like her husband, rather than merely stay home and take care of the children, so it can also be seen as a tale of female empowerment. These ideas are just as relevant now as they were when the book was published in 1897. In addition, vampires and movies are a perfect match. Movies, with their visual trickery, can show vampires transforming into bats, wolves and mist. And even the very notion of cinema itself is vampiric, capturing the essence of performers who then remain ever youthful, never aging, and who, in this digital age, can be summoned up anytime to haunt us anew with their ghostly presence.

Coate: In what way was Gary Oldman a memorable or effective Dracula? And what did you think of the other key performances in the film? Do they elevate or hinder the quality of the film?

Scivally: One of the earliest films I remember seeing is the 1931 Dracula starring Bela Lugosi, which was pretty scary to me when I was five years old. In my teens, I discovered Christopher Lee’s more feral interpretation of the character in the Hammer horror films, and enjoyed Jack Palance’s take in the aforementioned Dan Curtis TV movie. My favorite version of the story remains the 1979 Dracula scripted by W.D. Richter, with Frank Langella — fresh off reviving the character on Broadway — creating a more sensual, Byronic vampire. In a way, Gary Oldman combines all of those earlier performances into one. He has an even thicker accent than Lugosi, exhibits the savage fierceness of Lee and Palance, and is even more Byronic than Langella. I don’t think there has ever been an actor before or since who portrayed such a wide range of emotions as Dracula. Oldman’s performance is a highlight of the film, and Winona Ryder is quite good in a role that she hoped would present her as a more adult actor after a string of emo teen roles. And then there’s Keanu Reeves... I like Keanu Reeves. I think he’s a good actor, and I think he’s terrific in the recent John Wick films. But in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Reeves seems woefully out of place. His poor on-again, off-again English accent is distracting, and his discomfort in the role manifests itself in a performance so wooden it nearly puts a lethal stake through the heart of the film. Coppola cast Reeves because he wanted a hot, young actor to play Jonathan Harker; ‘tis a pity he didn’t choose a hot, young British actor, like, say, Rupert Graves. Then the film might have been damn near perfect.

Coate: How does Coppola’s Dracula film compare to past and more recent interpretations?

Scivally: Coppola’s version of Dracula is one of the most lush ever committed to film, and it’s an interpretation of the story that stresses romance over horror even more so than the Palance or Langella versions. It’s the film to see if you want an emotionally overwrought, visually sumptuous feast. In musical terms, Lugosi’s film is a concerto, Langella’s a ballet, and Coppola’s is grand opera. And I think it’s significant that in that sentence, I’ve identified the first two examples by their actors, and the third by its director. The film may as well have been officially titled Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula, because it so unmistakably bears the stamp of its director.

Coate: What is the legacy of Bram Stoker’s Dracula?

Scivally: As mentioned before, the legacy of Bram Stoker’s Dracula is that it created a host of new vampire film tropes, like retractable fangs, vampires turning into literal bat-men, and a Steampunk aesthetic. It also created a renewed interest in Bram Stoker’s literary creation, so that the following decades have seen more Dracula movies, a Dracula TV series, and a gentle spoofing of Coppola’s Dracula in both The Simpsons and the New Zealand mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows. In short, Coppola pumped new blood into the vampire film.

Coate: Thank you, Bruce, for sharing your thoughts about Bram Stoker’s Dracula on the occasion of its 25th anniversary.

“[Batman Returns is] the first auteur superhero movie. I think the execs at Warners realized that you just let Tim Burton alone and let him make a Tim Burton movie and people will see it in droves.” — Danse Macabre: 25 Years of Danny Elfman and Tim Burton author Jeff Bond

The Digital Bits and History, Legacy & Showmanship are pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the silver anniversary of the release of Batman Returns, Tim Burton’s follow-up to the immensely popular 1989 Dark Knight adventure, starring Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer. [Read on here...]

Batman Returns, one of the most anticipated sequels ever made, opened in theaters twenty-five years ago this week.

For the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a reference/historical listing of the film’s digital sound presentations; and, finally, an interview segment with a trio of comicbook/superhero movie authorities and film historians.

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“It is a common theory that when you have a hero, like James Bond, Superman or Batman, in a continuing series, it’s the villain that gives each movie its flavor. Batman had the Joker, played Jack Nicholson, to lend it energy, but the Penguin is a curiously meager and depressing creature; I pitied him, but did not fear him or find him funny. The genius of Danny DeVito is all but swallowed up in the paraphernalia of the role. Batman Returns is odd and sad, but not exhilarating.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Batman Returns has wonderful, scary music (by Elfman, no Prince this time) and a wonderful, scary look — courtesy of cinematographer Stefan Czapsky (Vampire’s Kiss, Edward Scissorhands) and production designer Bo Welch, carrying on in the style of the late Anton Furst, who designed the first Batman). The performances are generally good, not just Keaton’s but also that of Michelle Pfeiffer, who is shockingly feline in her skin-tight black-leather suit (with whip accessory) and who manages to find a measure of plausibility in the bizarre Catwoman.” — Jay Boyar, Orlando Sentinel

“No matter how Batman Returns performs at the box office, I doubt that Burton will make a third installment. He seems to have thrown all his ideas into this one, including touches from his other movies: the sympathetic, handicapped monster from Edward Scissorhands, the comic demons from Beetlejuice and the freak show comedy from Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure.” — Bob Fenster, (Phoenix) Arizona Republic

“For Hollywood, summer is increasingly the season of the big-budget gamble. Batman Returns may be the surest box office bet of the year, but when you get past the saturation merchandising to the movie itself, it’s hard not to notice there’s no Joker in the deck this time.” — Desmond Ryan, Philadelphia Inquirer

“Burton loses a few points for including egotistical references to his other films, ranging from ice sculptures that are dead ringers for the surrealistic hedges in Edward Scissorhands to dialogue borrowed from Pee-wee’s Big Adventure. When Michelle Pfeiffer says, ‘That’s my name, don’t wear it out,’ it’s too much.” — Jeff Strickler, (Minneapolis) Star Tribune

“Darker, louder and more confusing than a cheap carnival fun house, Batman Returns is an assault on the eyes and ears, not to mention the intelligence.” — Joe Pollack, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

“On all counts, Batman Returns is a monster. Follow-up to the sixth-highest-grossing film of all time has the same dark allure that drew audiences in three years ago. But many non-fans of the initial outing will find this sequel superior in several respects, meaning that Tim Burton’s latest exercise in fabulist dementia should receive even stronger across-the-board acceptance than the original. Warner Bros.’ reported $80 million-plus investment will be an afterthought in the wake of the [box office] cascade, which should approach the $250 million neighborhood of the first pic domestically.” — Variety

“Batman Returns, the most eagerly awaited and aggressively hyped film of the summer, is, for better or worse, very much the product of director Tim Burton’s morose imagination. His dark, melancholy vision is undeniably something to see, but it is a claustrophobic conception, not an expansive one, oppressive rather than exhilarating, and it strangles almost all the enjoyment out of this movie without half trying. The result is a cheerless, brooding but always visually inventive film, more or less what you might expect if Ingmar Bergman had directed The Addams Family.” — Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times

“This time the richness of the Batman movie is not in its production design — indeed, designer Bo Welch is a toy shop window decorator compared with the late, great Anton Furst — but rather in Burton’s and screenwriter Daniel Waters’ Freudian view of adult human behavior. If all this makes Batman Returns seem overly serious, well, that’s an overstatement. But it should be a pleasure for non-adolescents to encounter a comic-book action picture in which the characters are more important than their gadgets.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“Tim Burton has wisely switched gears, reinventing the mood and manner of Batman so fearlessly that he steps out of his own film’s murky shadow. Mr. Burton’s new Batman Returns is as sprightly as its predecessor was sluggish, and it succeeds in banishing much of the dourness and tedium that made the first film such an ordeal. Indeed, allowing for a ceiling on viewers’ interest as to just what can transpire between cartoon characters like Batman and the Penguin, Batman Returns is often an unexpectedly droll creation. It stands as evidence that movie properties, like this story’s enchantingly mixed-up Catwoman, really can have multiple lives.” — Janet Maslin, The New York Times

“Now comes the sequel with a trio of masked schizophrenics who each seem to be in a separate movie when they’re not at each other’s throats. It’s a film more cartoonish and less apocalyptic than the original, revving with spectacle, energy and chaos, but rarely very funny, startling or provocative. At best, Batman Returns manages to be fitfully offbeat and quirky but only in ways we’ve seen before in Tim Burton movies.” — Judy Gerstel, Detroit Free Press

“Hampered by weak pacing, nonexistent story structure and routine action sequences, Burton and screenwriter Daniel Waters have emphasized a surprising degree of dark, kinky humor that nicely counters the film’s box-office mayhem. Waters has an annoying tendency towards gutter-minded punchlines (he cowrote The Adventures of Ford Fairlane and Hudson Hawk), but his knack for quirky dialogue yields a few memorable gems that must be heard to be appreciated.” — Jeff Shannon, The Seattle Times

“Batman Returns is all icing and no cake. The picture won’t disappoint anyone looking for film making on a grand scale. Batman Returns is as big as movies get in 1992 and represents the efforts of hundreds of talented people working in set and costume design, special effects and inventive gadgetry. It also features four big stars and a number of famous faces, all of them turning in good performances. Yet for all the movie’s richness and dazzle, for all that money dripping off the screen, Batman Returns is a gorgeous failure — flashy, intermittently appealing but, in the end, a big mess. Batman Returns lacks a coherent story. It lacks a point of view and a focus. And so everything suffers, even the art direction.” — Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

THE DIGITAL SOUND ENGAGEMENTS

Batman Returns was the first motion picture released in Dolby Stereo Digital* (aka Dolby SR-D, AC-3, Dolby Digital), and the first batch of theaters to install the system and present the movie in the format are identified below.

The theaters screening the Dolby Stereo Digital presentation of Batman Returns were arguably the best in which to experience the movie and the only way at the time to faithfully hear the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix and with incredible sonic clarity. The channel layout for Dolby’s digital audio format was: three discrete screen channels + two discrete surround channels + low-frequency enhancement. (The balance of the 2,000+ domestic prints of Batman Returns were a combination of Dolby SR and Dolby A four-channel matrix-encoded, limited bandwidth formats.)

*Prior to the release of Batman Returns in June 1992, there were un-promoted Dolby Stereo Digital test screenings of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (released December 1991) and Newsies (April 1992).

So, for historical reference, the first-run North American theaters that screened the digital sound version of Batman Returns were….

CALIFORNIA

Lakewood — Pacific’s Lakewood Center 4-plex

Los Angeles — Mann’s Chinese Triplex [THX]

Los Angeles — Mann’s Village [THX]

Newport Beach — Edwards’ Newport Triplex

Orange — Syufy’s Century Cinedome 11-plex

San Francisco — UA’s Coronet

NEW YORK

New York — Loews’ Village 7-plex [THX]

New York — UA’s Criterion 7-plex

New York — UA’s Gemini Twin

TEXAS

Dallas — General Cinema’s Northpark West Twin [THX]

WASHINGTON

THE Q&A

Jeff Bond is the author of Danse Macabre: 25 Years of Danny Elfman and Tim Burton (included in The Danny Elfman & Tim Burton 25th Anniversary Music Box, Warner Bros., 2011). He also wrote The Music of Star Trek (Lone Eagle, 1999) and (with Joe Fordham) Planet of the Apes: The Evolution of the Legendary Franchise (Titan, 2014) and The Art of Star Trek: The Kelvin Timeline (forthcoming from Titan). Jeff is the former editor of Geek magazine, covered film music for The Hollywood Reporter for ten years, and has contributed liner notes to numerous CD soundtrack releases. He also has portrayed Dr. McCoy on the Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II Internet series.

Scott Mendelson is a box office analyst and film critic for Forbes magazine. He has also written for Film Threat, The Huffington Post and Salon.

Bruce Scivally is the author of Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011). His other books include Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 2015), Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006) and (with John Cork) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He is Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way should Batman Returns be remembered on its 25th anniversary?

Jeff Bond: Both Burton’s Batman films are pivotal both to lay the foundations for the serious, psychologically complex superhero movies we see today, and as the illustration of Tim Burton as an utterly unique artist who was given the reigns to Warner Bros.’ and DC’s priceless comic book superheroes. He was allowed to take these iconic characters, who for years had been marketed as toys and coloring books and comic books generating millions and millions of dollars, and potentially risk destroying all of that as a revenue stream and cultural artifact by reinterpreting them through his totally idiosyncratic vision — and it worked.

Scott Mendelson: It remains something of a pop-culture anomaly. It was a financially successful summer release nonetheless remembered for its poor audience reception and lightning-fast box office downfall. The film was the first modern quick-kill blockbuster, in that it was so anticipated and opened so well (a record $47 million opening weekend) that it ended up making a ton of money even though most folks didn’t care much for it…. It some ways, it is the best live-action Batman movie, offering insanely original imagery and deeply weird characters amid a Grimm fairy tale reimagining of the Batman mythos that nonetheless is relatively faithful to the late-1980s/early-1990s comic book era. It is a fine example of going against the source material in the service of a better movie, or at least in the service of the specific character drama that a filmmaker is trying to tell.

Bruce Scivally: In 1989, after a decade of false starts, Batman opened to become one of the hottest movie tickets of the summer. Unlike 1978’s Superman, which established the template for big-budget “A” list superhero movies — and was practically the only “A” list superhero franchise for the next decade — Batman showed that there was room in the superhero universe for a darker conception of what a hero could be. But the first film was such a phenomenon that it raised a crucial question — was its success just a fluke, a combination of good timing, savvy marketing and superstar casting (Jack Nicholson, who played the Joker, was at the height of his fame)? Or was it a sustainable franchise, whose success could be repeated? Warner Bros. gambled on the latter, and backed the production of a sequel, under the guidance of the same director (Tim Burton), the same producers (including Michael Uslan, the originator of the project who fought tremendous odds to bring a Batman to the screen that wasn’t Day-Glo campy like the 1960s TV series), and the same star (Michael Keaton, whose career shift from manic comedy roles to brooding loner parts was helped greatly by Batman’s success). It was a calculated gamble that paid off; Batman Returns, like its predecessor, became a bona-fide box-office blockbuster.

Coate: What did you think of Batman Returns? Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw it?

Bond: My reaction was complicated — I really loved Burton’s original Batman, and I do remember being truly impressed by just what an auteur’s vision Batman Returns was. But for my taste it almost went all the way over into self-indulgence, where the action movie roots got swamped by almost a celebration of victimhood and outsiders — basically everyone from Batman to Catwoman to the Penguin is a wounded, brooding social outcast, which is what Burton understood best, and that all got kind of lugubrious for me and sucked the fun out of it. A lot of the action in Batman was driven by the second unit director Peter MacDonald, and I think I missed his touch on the second one. But I appreciate it more today, especially for Walken’s and Michelle Pfeiffer’s performances.

Mendelson: I loved it when I was 12 and I still love it. It’s kind of an art house blockbuster, where if it wasn’t based on known characters it probably would have been hailed as an indie arthouse masterpiece of sorts. It’s deeply weird, often painful in its character melodrama and absolutely rooted more in character than plot or long-form storytelling. And, sad to say, but Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman is every bit as “groundbreaking” a major female character in a mega-blockbuster as she was twenty-five years ago.

Scivally: I had felt that the first Batman film was a triumph of marketing over movie-making (for me, its plot rambles and often makes little sense). Batman Returns was more tightly scripted, but it began the formula of multiple villains in each film. If you count Max Shreck (named for the actor who starred in the 1922 horror film Nosferatu), there were three villains in Batman Returns, as opposed to one in the first film. The more villains you have, the less screen time you have to devote to each one and to their conflicts with Batman. More importantly, the more villains you have, the less time you have to devote to your hero. This contributed to Michael Keaton leaving the series; with Batman Returns, he felt that he was a guest star in his own film series (indeed, in the film’s first half hour, Keaton is on screen for only about five minutes). The reason for the glut of villains has more to do with the marketing team than with the creative team; Warner Bros. began to look at the Batman films as elaborate toy ads — the more villains there were in the film, the more different kinds of toys they could sell. At the same time, it firmly established the film series as a kind of counterpart to the TV series, in that both featured high-profile name actors as villains.

Coate: In what way is Batman Returns significant within the superhero/comicbook genre?

Bond: It’s the first auteur superhero movie. On Batman, I think Tim Burton was given an unusual freedom of expression, but he was still under the reigns of Warner Bros. and I think there were some important decisions that were not necessarily left to him. I think they brought Peter MacDonald in to make sure they were getting a slam-bang action movie. Then once they had an incredible hit with Batman and Burton made Edward Scissorhands, which was a totally personal film and still a huge hit, I think the execs at Warners realized that you just let Tim Burton alone and let him make a Tim Burton movie and people will see it in droves. So there is so much strangeness in Batman Returns — opening it with the journey of that little floating cradle holding the Penguin, and ending it with an attack on Gotham by an army of rocket-armed live penguins, and all sorts of other stuff — it’s an insane movie and probably one of the most insane blockbuster movies ever made.

Mendelson: The overall lesson of Batman Returns, in terms of its reception, was that these big movies, even the ones that were PG-13 and arguably aimed at older kids/adults, were going to be viewed by very young kids. After Batman Returns, we saw a slight neutering of genuinely adult content (sex and violence) in popcorn blockbuster movies of this nature. It led to the PG-13 slowly but surely being turned into a glorified PG, before Lord of the Rings sent everything in the other direction where any number of PG-13 movies are basically R-rated movies edited “just so” for that kid-friendly rating…. But even today, twenty-five years later, you’d never see anything as weird or kinky or outright sexual in a comic book superhero movie as you did with Batman Returns. Even something like Logan is basically a standard western with R-rated violence, and Deadpool is a bawdy action comedy that mostly plays nice with its audience and characters.

Scivally: Like its predecessor, Batman Returns is significant for its tone and the portrayal of its main character. National Periodical Publications/DC Comics had considered ceasing publication of the comic books due to low sales until the TV series premiered and made the character one of the “3 B’s” of the 1960s — the Beatles, Bond, and Batman. Although the TV series accurately captured the tone of the comic books of that era, many fans who came of age in the 1970s — when the comic books took a more serious, adult tone and approached the character more seriously — hated the campy depiction of their hero. Michael Uslan made it his mission to bring a vision of Batman to the big screen that would be more in keeping with the 1970s conception, and found it nearly impossible to overcome the deeply ingrained perception of Batman as a “silly” comic book. It helped that by the time Batman was released in 1989, comic books had become “graphic novels” with a readership of young adults rather than young kids, and writer Frank Miller had reinvented Batman with a critically-acclaimed 1986 graphic novel masterpiece, The Dark Knight Returns. After the disappointing box-office returns of two campy Superman movies and a Supergirl film, Batman and Batman Returns began the evolution of superhero movies into darker tales made, like the first two Superman films, primarily for adults, not children.

Bond: Again, it was the way Warner Bros. empowered Tim Burton just to make the movie he wanted and not worry about how this was serving the franchise or setting up other movies (in fact there was talk of moving forward with more Keaton/Burton Batman movies but eventually you had Joel Schumacher, who was like the opposite of Tim Burton, take over). It set the precedent for giving these franchise films to up and coming, creative directors to see what kind of energy they’d bring to it — but no one has ever brought the kind of personal vision to a comic book film that Burton did.

Mendelson:Batman Returns sticks out today as a sequel that is both a part of its franchise (it acknowledges the events of Batman) and utterly its own separate thing. It is not remotely concerned with the next sequel nor any kind of world-building beyond the story being told in its 126-minute running time. It was also notable in terms of a sequel being a full-on work of auteurism as opposed to a more “half studio/half filmmaker” original franchise starter. Think Transformers 2, Batman & Robin, The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2.

Scivally: The initial Superman film showed that a comic book movie could be made like an “A” list film and draw an adult audience; the first Batman film showed that the public would buy a version of Batman that was darker than the Adam West TV version. The second film proved that the success of the first Batman film was repeatable, establishing it as a viable franchise.

Coate: Where do you think Batman Returns ranks among director Tim Burton’s body of work?

Bond: It was confirmation that Burton could do blockbusters, make them his way, and have them be huge hits. He’s probably the strangest director that Hollywood has ever consistently given millions of dollars to make movies and given him almost absolute freedom to do so, and I think that’s wonderful. After years of Tim Burton movies you do get people making fun of their conventions but there is no one else who makes movies like him — he is a genre unto himself and that’s nothing to be ashamed of.

Mendelson: I think it’s Tim Burton’s second best movie behind Ed Wood. It’s a deeply personal work inside a comic book superhero sequel and I think its “controversy” broke him for a while. But it just took a while for the kids who grew up on Beetlejuice and Pee-wee to grow up to be adults and the new generation of film critics/media for him to get his due as more than just a great art director.

Scivally: I can’t answer this question in good faith, because I have not seen all of Tim Burton’s films. I wouldn’t rank it among his best works (that honor goes to Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Big Eyes), but it’s not among his worst, either. It’s middling. It definitely has the unique look of a Burton film, existing in a studio-bound universe all its own (it’s an odd world: a mostly black, decrepit Gotham, overrun with giant-sized Fascist statuary, angled rooftops with an abundance of smoke-belching exhaust pipes, and people running about dressed like it’s the 1940s instead of the 1990s; production designer Bo Welch conceived it as a city that was “huge, dehumanizing and falling in on itself”), it moves at a good pace and has fine performances, and is more tightly-plotted than the rather sloppy Batman film that preceded it, but for me it’s undone by having the Penguin be Shreck’s stooge rather than a criminal mastermind in his own right, and Batman not really having much to do.

Coate: How effective or memorable a villain was Danny DeVito’s The Penguin?

Bond: To my thinking DeVito’s performance, and the way it was guided by Burton, is the biggest miscalculation in the movie, because he is so unpleasant, creepy and scary that his scenes kind of suck the fun out of the movie. Contrast that with Christopher Walken’s scenes, which are arguably the most fun parts of the movie. Walken manages to be an unpredictable, effective villain, but he’s also hilarious, and this is a movie with attacking penguins, so you’d think it would be a little more fun. But the other side of the coin is that it’s part of the journey toward the darker superhero movies of today like The Dark Knight or even Logan. People forget that the only previous comic book movies were the Superman films, which were bright and funny and charming, and no one had seen a blockbuster comic book movie that was dark and gothic before. So maybe you couldn’t have Heath Ledger’s Joker without Danny DeVito’s Penguin.

Scivally: DeVito’s Penguin is a truly horrible and disgusting creature, with his white face, beak nose, claw hands, black eyes, sharp grey teeth, and scraggly hair. And in almost every scene there’s something drooling over his chin — raw fish, blood, black bile. But he’s not the real villain of the piece. That honor goes to Max Shreck, played by Christopher Walken. Max (the second time Walken played a villain named Max in a major franchise, after being Max Zorin in 1985’s 007 film A View to a Kill) is a wealthy businessman with political influence whose public beneficence hides sinister intentions. The Penguin, meanwhile, is an attention-starved, lecherous walking id longing to be accepted and praised. The idea that anyone like Shreck, or the Penguin, could ever fool the public enough to attain high political office is absurd. Right?

Coate: How effective or memorable a villain was Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman?

Bond: You can make a pretty good argument that Pfeiffer’s Catwoman was the best ever done — her introduction is a bravura sequence and her chemistry with Michael Keaton is electrifying and outrageously ups the ante on the old Adam West/Julie Newmar interaction from the 1966 show, which was groundbreaking on its own. The Pfeiffer Catwoman I think was a pivotal piece of proto-feminism in showing her origin as really a reaction to the sexist, condescending treatment of Christopher Walken’s character, so she becomes less a villain than an antihero who’s out there kicking ass for women all over, and even taking her rage out on another woman who she sees as acting too much the victim during a wave of street crime. Between Burton’s staging, the cinematography and her costume design, she might be the first convincing female comic book superhero character in the movies.

Mendelson: I’m not going to say she should have won the Oscar that year, because I’m a big Marisa Tomei fan, but Pfeiffer should darn well have at least been nominated for her richly introspective bit of villainy. It’s not only a wonderful melodramatic performance but a sharp bit of ahead-of-its-time satire that pokes brutal fun at the now in-vogue “strong female character” trope.

Scivally: Michelle Pfeiffer was an outstanding Catwoman. Like Penguin, she was — at least while clad in black leather — a walking id, while her Selina Kyle persona developed from being mousy at the beginning to more bold by the end, as her Catwoman-self allowed her to claim and embrace her inner feminine power. She’s just as schizophrenic and mentally unbalanced as Bruce Wayne/Batman. And the actress (a last-minute replacement for Annette Bening, who became pregnant prior to the commencement of filming) certainly committed herself to her role — the bird that flies out of her mouth was done for real, not with special effects.

Coate: What is the legacy of Batman Returns?

Bond: Both Burton’s Batman films are pivotal both to lay the foundations for the serious, psychologically complex superhero movies we see today, and as the illustration of Tim Burton as an utterly unique artist who was given the reigns to Warner Bros.’ and DC’s priceless comic book superheroes.

Mendelson:As I wrote back in September: This gorgeous, haunting and unexpectedly moving comic book superhero sequel was an arthouse horror story using the protection of the most famous “branded” material in the world. It somewhat backfired on audiences and critics, who didn’t care for gore and sexuality in their kid-targeted superhero story. But the film stands tall today as an uncommonly personal and challenging blockbuster…. Part “faithful” adaptation of the late-80s/early-90s Batman comics, part “Batman as a fairy tale,” this deliciously macabre action comedy is still one of the all-time great comic book adaptations. It also operates as a metaphor for the main character, with each of the three villains (Danny De Vito’s bitter abandoned orphan, Michelle Pfeiffer’s righteously crazed murderous vigilante and Christopher Walken’s heartlessly evil corporate tycoon) represented a “what-if” worst case scenario path that our hero could have taken…. And yeah, I loved it in 1992, was befuddled by the reception (I always found Batman to be far more violent) and was saddened when it led to the de-fanging of the PG-13 for a while. But it’s still one of the great comic book superhero movies of all time and stands alongside Mission: Impossible and Terminator 2 as one of the big “really for adults” tentpole blockbusters of the mid-1990s.

Scivally: The film is more tightly scripted than its predecessor, with a theme of rejection and acceptance; it begins with the ultimate rejection, as the Cobblepots throw their deformed baby into a river, and continues with Penguin’s desire for acceptance leading him to run for Mayor. In addition, there’s Selena Kyle, a wallflower who appears to have been rejected by men all her life, culminating with her boss, Max Shreck, pushing her out of a high window (an extreme rejection), and being reborn as the overtly sexual Catwoman. And Batman faces rejection from the citizens of Gotham when the Penguin makes it look as though he’s killed the city’s Ice Princess and run down its citizens in a Penguin-controlled Batmobile — and ultimately, he’s rejected by Selina Kyle/Catwoman. Batman Returns isn’t so much a superhero film as it is a dreamlike vision — or nightmare vision — of a city where the sun never shines, and the superheroes and supervillains are deeply psychologically scarred outsiders looking for their place in a society that rejects them, a theme that Burton often revisits in his best films. It is chock-full of the kind of bizarrely outré imagery typical of Burton’s imagination, but that imagination tends to bend in a morbid direction, which is what ultimately spelled the end of Burton’s reign as Batman director — kids whose parents took them to the film because it was promoted with McDonald’s Happy Meals were frightened by its dark themes, so Warner Bros. quietly pushed Burton aside and brought in a director who would be more willing to play ball with the studio and make the films more kid-friendly, leading to the neon, hyper-kinetic Batman films of Joel Schumacher.

Coate: Thank you — Jeff, Scott and Bruce — for sharing your thoughts on Batman Returns on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of its release.

--END--

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Warner Bros., Warner Home Video.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

The primary references for this project were regional newspaper coverage and trade reports published in Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and Widescreen Review. All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

SPECIAL THANKS

Don Beelik, Kathryn Devine, Bobby Henderson, Brad Miller, and to the San Francisco Public Library and Washington State Library.

”Thunderball will always be the ‘big one.’ When Bond was bigger than anything on the planet, except maybe the Beatles.” — Steven Jay Rubin

The Digital Bits is pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the golden anniversary of the release of Thunderball, the fourth cinematic James Bond adventure starring Sean Connery as Agent 007 and, notably, the first produced in widescreen and, when adjusted for inflation, the most successful entry in the series. [Read on here...]

As with our previous 007 articles (available here, here, here, here, and here), The Bits and History, Legacy & Showmanship continue the series with this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of James Bond authorities who discuss the virtues and shortcomings of Thunderball. The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

The participants…

Jon Burlingame is the author of The Music of James Bond (Oxford, 2012; and recently issued in paperback with an updated Skyfall chapter). He also authored Sound and Vision: 60 Years of Motion Picture Soundtracks (Watson-Guptill, 2000) and TV’s Biggest Hits: The Story of Television Themes from Dragnet to Friends (Schirmer, 1996). He writes regularly for the entertainment industry trade Variety and has also been published in The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

Robert A. Caplen is an attorney and the author of Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (Xlibris, 2010). He recently was featured in a segment on SPECTRE for an episode of the BBC World News’ Talking Movies.

James Chapman is a professor of Film Studies at the University of Leicester and is the author of Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films (Tauris, 2007). His other books include Inside the Tardis: The Worlds of Doctor Who—A Cultural History (Tauris, 2006), Saints and Avengers: British Adventure Series of the 1960s (Tauris, 2002), and (with Nicholas J. Cull) Projecting Empire: Imperialism and Popular Cinema (Tauris, 2009). Chapman is also a Council member of the International Association for Media and History and is editor of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television.

John Cork is the author (with Bruce Scivally) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He also wrote (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek.He recently wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman); the film is available on iTunes, Google Play and other streaming platforms.

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001), and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.”

Steven Jay Rubin is the author of The James Bond Films: A Behind-the-Scenes History (Random House, 1981) and The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia (McGraw-Hill, 2002). He also wrote Combat Films: American Realism, 1945-2010 (McFarland, 2011) and has written for Cinefantastique magazine.

Graham Rye is the editor, designer and publisher of 007 Magazine and the author of The James Bond Girls (Boxtree, 1989).

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), and Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 2015). As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He is the Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course) and cueing up the soundtrack album to Thunderball, and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Thunderball worthy of celebration on its 50th anniversary?

Jon Burlingame: Where to begin? With Goldfinger, the Bond series really hit its stride in terms of style; the mix of action, suspense and humor; Connery’s performance as 007; and, my special interest, music. Thunderball took it one step farther, and by setting so much of the action underwater, lent a new and intriguing “depth” (sorry) to the screen saga of Britain’s greatest secret agent. I loved the story, in particular; this brought back SPECTRE in a fascinating way—and now here we are, 50 years later, talking about SPECTRE in a new Bond film! Who could have guessed?!

Robert A. Caplen: Thunderball is one of the most intriguing Bond films and novels, complete with the drama of a legal dispute. In the early 1960s, Kevin McClory claimed that the novel infringed upon an earlier screenplay on which he and Jack Whittingham collaborated with Ian Fleming. In light of the pending litigation, Danjaq opted to introduce audiences to James Bond through Dr. No. That decision forever changed the trajectory of the franchise…. When Ian Fleming eventually conceded that his novel reproduced a substantial part of the Fleming/McClory/Whittingham screenplay, a settlement was reached, and Fleming assigned some of his rights in the novel to McClory. McClory then granted Danjaq a license to produce a film version of Thunderball. McClory was given credit as the film’s producer, and the rest is apparently history…. Fast-forward 50 years: the legal issues surrounding Thunderball, once again,reemerged as ownership of SPECTRE and related characters again was the subject of dispute. A recent settlement between McClory’s estate and Danjaq finally resolved the issue once and for all, and paved the way for development and release of the latest Eon Productions installment, SPECTRE. Thunderball is a fantastic film that is more than deserving of renewed celebration during its golden anniversary. But its influence is far-reaching. Thunderball, perhaps more so than other films, plays a central part in an even larger, complex story that enables us to continue enjoying James Bond today.

James Chapman: Thunderball is a major landmark for the James Bond film series. It was the most successful Bond movie of all when the box-office is adjusted for inflation. It was released at the height of Bondmania and the associated spy craze of the 1960s. It was the fourth Bond movie but also marked several “firsts” for the series. It was the first shot in widescreen (Panavision) and the first with a more or less simultaneous release in Britain and the United States. In a sense it was the first really epic (in the sense of “Big”) Bond movie and to that extent the prototype for other “Big” Bonds such as You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker and SPECTRE…. As all Bond fans know, Thunderball started out as a screen treatment by Ian Fleming, Jack Whittingham and Kevin McClory in 1959. This was a couple of years before Harry Saltzman and Cubby Broccoli teamed up to produce the Bond film series. Fleming used material from the screen treatment for the novel. In that sense Thunderball is a very cinematic novel. It was to have been the first film, but due to the court case between Fleming and McClory, and perhaps also because Thunderball would have been expensive to produce, it was decided to make Dr. No as the first film instead…. Kevin McClory is a controversial figure in Bond history, of course. I think that McClory himself probably overstated his role in the origin of the cinematic Bond while Saltzman and Broccoli tended to downplay his role. But McClory deserves credit for recognizing the cinematic potential of Bond. And ultimately Thunderball isn’t very far different from the final version of the Whittingham-McClory treatment. He became rather obsessive over his alleged or perceived “rights” to Bond later in life, but McClory should not be written out of the history of cinematic Bond. Robert Sellers’ fine book The Battle for Bond is the best account of the McClory episode, and he untangles the various contributions of Fleming, McClory and Whittingham to the development of the ultimately aborted project.

John Cork: “It’s the biggest.” Thunderball sold more tickets than any other Bond film. It marks the apex of success of the 007 franchise, the point where Bond was the complete focus on popular culture, the absolutely height of spymania. Thunderball is also the film that would come to define how Bond films would be made even to this day. Using multiple crews shooting major sequences simultaneously, building set-pieces around single “gags” like the Bell-Textron Rocket Belt or the Skyhook rescue system, massive product placement deals, coordinating the release with tie-in advertising and cross-promotions: all of these elements of the Bond series began with Thunderball…. Thunderball is also a very good film, but like so many Bond films, a beautiful mess. Where Goldfinger feels like a film where every shot was planned perfectly, Thunderball plays like live jazz. The fan magazine (and now website) for Led Zeppelin is named Tight but Loose, and that describes Thunderball for me. Just when you think the film is about to go completely off the rails, it pulls it back together. If you can go with the film, it’s like a great Led Zeppelin concert: over-the-top, outrageous, a bit silly, but at times absolutely brilliant, and it even has a drum solo. For me, the film remains one of my favorite Bond viewing experiences. It is also the Bond film with the most amazing behind-the-scenes stories, tales that begin with a famed former aid to a New York City mayor in 1958 and echo through to the release of SPECTRE. In the world of Bond, it all comes back to Thunderball.

Lee Pfeiffer:Thunderball was a blockbuster in every sense of the word and the film that launched Bondmania into the stratosphere. The degree of success of Goldfinger took the producers and the studio by surprise. There were few merchandising opportunities. It’s hard to believe but no one had the foresight to even capitalize on the Aston Martin DB5 when Goldfinger was released in September 1964. Producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman weren’t going to let the next opportunity go by. They geared up for probably the biggest merchandise tie-in program since the Disney Davy Crockett craze a decade earlier. Bond toys and merchandise flooded the international market with predictable results. Thunderball was the peak of the Bond boom in the 1960s. It played to packed houses in an era when films didn’t open “wide” in early engagements. Instead, select theaters in big cities got the movie first. You had to wait in long lines to get a ticket. In New York, the Paramount Theater found that even round-the-clock shows couldn’t accommodate the crowds. The film was probably the biggest action-oriented blockbuster ever released. Critics were less impressed than they had been by the previous Bond films, correctly pointing out that with Thunderball, the emphasis was increasingly on gadgetry as opposed to fully fleshed-out characters. However, the movie did have its defenders. It’s the only Bond film to date to make The New York Times list of Ten Best Films of the Year. In any event, audiences loved the movie and a casualty of that success is that the series did become increasingly preoccupied with special effects and hi-tech equipment. This was a gripe of Sean Connery as well. It was probably with this film that he began to lose his enthusiasm for playing 007. Another critic of the movie was its director Terence Young, who felt the film suffered from the abundance of underwater scenes that, by necessity, slowed the action. Fans tended to disagree. Peter Hunt’s editing and John Barry’s superb score went a long way in keeping the final battle sequence exciting.

Steven Jay Rubin: For me personally, Thunderball was the high water mark of the series in the 1960s. After the success of Goldfinger, the appreciation level for anything Bondian blasted off the roof—and Thunderball was its culmination. For my money, it was Connery’s last truly great Bond role. It’s also the most romantic Bond because Bond is matched with arguably the most beautiful woman in the series, lovely French actress Claudine Auger. It has the biggest story, plays on the biggest canvas, and just kicks ass all up and down the line.

Graham Rye: Thunderballwas the biggest Bond of all, and nothing that followed ever really matched its overall success, especially for a child of the ‘60s. Ken Adam’s SPECTRE boardroom (far more visually impressive, eerie and effective than its equivalent in 2015’s SPECTRE) and Whitehall Conference Room sets, together with the design of Largo’s yacht/hydrofoil (the Disco Volante) and the visual richness of the film once again immediately told the cinemagoer in 1965 they were unmistakably watching an Eon Productions James Bond film—and to underline that fact, John Barry’s score perfectly complemented the grandeur, action, and intimacy of every aspect of the story—and his composition Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang aptly captured Sean Connery’s confident swagger better than anything else Barry ever wrote. Nobody really understood James Bond like director Terence Young, and in Thunderball it shows in spades. Young undoubtedly molded the young Connery into the Bond role in Dr. No (1962) and in From Russia with Love (1963), in Thunderball his pupil “graduated.”

Bruce Scivally: Thunderball is Bond writ large. From fairly modest beginnings with Dr. No and From Russia with Love to the gadget-filled romp that was Goldfinger, each 007 film had upped the ante from the last. With Thunderball, the film went epic: more gadgets, bigger stunts, and, for the first time, wide screen. After the roaring success of Goldfinger, Thunderball was the film that took James Bond over the top to becoming a phenomenon. The success of those two movies changed cinema and television for the next decade, as spy characters began popping up all over, from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. to Flint to Matt Helm and beyond. But Bond was the king spy of all of them. The Bond films set a bar that, in the 1960s, no other spy adventures would surpass.

Burlingame: It wasn’t on first release; I can’t recall exactly when, but it was certainly at a drive-in in upstate New York, where I grew up, paired with another Connery, possibly From Russia with Love or You Only Live Twice. I had seen one or two other Bonds at that point and my reaction was, wow, I’ve got to see all of these!

Caplen: I remember watching Thunderball as a youth and enjoying the film. The underwater fight scenes and the rocket belt left indelible images upon my impressionable mind. As I’ve revisited the film over the years, I can’t help but laugh each time Bond has his initial exchange with Domino and admires her (swimming) form.

Chapman: I first saw it when it came on British TV in the late 1970s. I’d have been about eight or nine. I particularly liked the pre-title sequence with the jet pack. And I remember liking the underwater scenes too. Some critics feel that these slow down the film, but I don’t see that. Yes, the movement is slower; of course it is, but in fact most of the underwater scenes are quite short, while the big battle at the end is edited at such a furious pace that it doesn’t seem slow.

Cork: The evening of September 22nd, 1974. I had started reading the Bond novels that summer and had completed Thunderball sometime in August. I was 13, and if you asked any of my friends they would have told you I was already a huge James Bond fan. Live and Let Die made me a Bond fan, but Thunderball was the first Bond film I saw once I had become a fan. Even with the ads and the cuts for television, it was an electrifying experience for me. Every time I see the film, I’m transported back to being 13 and completely captivated by the film…. By the way, long before I saw the film, a friend of mine found the soundtrack in his family’s record collection. We used to choreograph slow motion fights in his living room to the music.

Pfeiffer: I saw Thunderball opening week. I was nine years old. Like Goldfinger, it simply blew me away. I think today’s young audiences are so used to seeing amazing effects that there isn’t much left to thrill them visually. But with Thunderball, the effects were truly impressive for audience members—and they were done by real people in the pre-CGI era. I went virtually every day with my friends to see it during the Christmas break from school. Finally, my dad—who was a big Bond fan, by the way—said, “Enough! I’m not going to give you another 75 cents to see Thunderball for the seventh time.” Instead, I told him I wanted to see Battle of the Bulge, so he relented and gave me the money. On the way to the theater, however, I ran into the gang from my neighborhood and they talked me into going with them to see Thunderball again. A few nights later I had forgotten my deception and asked my dad to take me to see Battle of the Bulge. I remember him calling me out on my lie and saying, “You went to see Thunderball again, didn’t you?” I confessed to my crime. He found it amusing and ended up taking me to see Battle of the Bulge. Another personal memory relates to my bringing the souvenir program to my school. The principal saw it. She was a puritanical old maid and went ballistic over the abundance of scantily clad women. She tore up my precious program in front of the class, dismissing it as “filth”! My mom and dad were outraged. They felt it was none of her business, so they bought me another program, which I still have to this day. In terms of their views on social issues, they were pretty liberal for the day, so I benefited from that. I also went repeatedly to see Thunderball on its re-releases as part of those marvelous old Bond double-features, so the film has a special place in my childhood memories.

Rubin: I saw Thunderball at Grauman’s Chinese Theater on Hollywood Blvd. when the film opened in December 1965. I loved it, for all the right reasons. It was a unique action film with a lot of things going on in and under the water, and that was very unique for its day. Yes, we had a television series with Lloyd Bridges called Sea Hunt, but it was very low key, nothing like Thunderball. But to see an underwater battle scene, and hear that great John Barry music was pretty cool.

Rye: My earliest recollection of the film Thunderball is visiting the Odeon Hammersmith, London, in early January 1966, in the days when it was still the best cinema screen just short of London’s West End, and certainly a better venue to watch the first Bond film shot in the widescreen format of Panavision than either the London Pavilion or the Rialto in Piccadilly, where the film had been premiered simultaneously on December 29th, 1965…. I arrived late (not unusual for me!), and Sean Connery was just diving off Martine Beswick’s boat into the Bahamian sea to join Claudine Auger in her speedboat. From then on in I was mesmerized. As soon as the film had finished I sat through the whole thing again without leaving my seat (something you were able to do in UK cinemas in the ‘60s without anyone seeming to mind), and marveled at everything once more. I enjoyed the film so much that I returned to the cinema twice the next week and sat through it twice again on each occasion—such was my fanaticism and enthusiasm as a 14-year-old schoolboy! I have long since lost track of how many times I’ve seen Thunderball, but still retain the wonderment for it of a schoolboy—and as I did when I hosted the 25th anniversary screening of Thunderball in 1990 at the National Film Theatre in London with various Bond alumni in attendance, and with its director, Terence Young, sitting next to me in the auditorium imparting his own personal commentary throughout the film—an unforgettable experience!

Scivally: I first saw Thunderball on television, back in the 1970s when ABC was running the Bond films. At that age (my early teens), I was besotted with James Bond, and I’m sure my reaction was enthusiastic, but I can’t remember much beyond that. When I moved to California, where “revival house” theaters in the early 1980s would show double and triple features of James Bond films, I finally saw Thunderball on the big screen. Seeing the films as they were meant to be seen—on a big screen, uncut, with an audience—was an eye-opening experience. The more episodic films held up better on television, where the frequent commercial interruptions weren’t as disruptive to their storylines. The films that had more cogent plots, like From Russia with Love, seemed rather boring on TV, but when I finally saw it in a theater, it became (and remains) my favorite. Thunderball, on the other hand, I liked on TV, but seeing it uncut, I found it overlong and rather dull.

Coate: Where do you think Thunderball ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Burlingame: For me, just behind Goldfinger and From Russia with Love in terms of the Connery series. I am not a big fan of the climax, although I love just about everything else. And in terms of John Barry’s score, it’s really phenomenal, although he wound up working very late in the post-production process, all through September and October 1965—a period that saw the unexpected rejection of his original song, Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (with its wonderful Leslie Bricusse lyrics and Dionne Warwick vocal) and the hasty creation of a new title song (with equally great Don Black lyrics and a powerful Tom Jones vocal). But the addition of a new song, and the necessary interpolation of it instrumentally in the score, gives a complex feel to the musical aspects of the film, as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is the entire foundation of the score and Thunderball is dropped in—not unlike the instrumental addition of the Adele song in the Skyfall score nearly 50 years later!

Caplen: Thunderball is, in my view, certainly one of the best James Bond films. By the time he suited up for his fourth mission as James Bond, Sean Connery was very accomplished as Agent 007, and it shows. I think the film still ranks within the top 5 in the franchise, even as Skyfall and SPECTRE continue to challenge the older installments for higher places on the list.

Chapman: Thunderball was the first genuinely “big” Bond movie—even more so than Goldfinger—in terms of budget, production values and visual spectacle. When you look at the budgets of the first three films—$950,000 for Dr. No, $1.9 million for From Russia with Love, about $3 million for Goldfinger—they weren’t all that expensive by the standards of the 1960s…. There’s a view that Thunderball was the film where the Bond series started to become a bit formulaic, reliant on set pieces rather than strong narratives. This point was made in a number of the contemporary reviews. And to be fair the middle part of the film from Bond’s arrival in the Bahamas to the departure of the Disco Volante is a bit episodic. But the whole point of the Bond films is that they’re formula films, and Thunderball was still early enough in the series to have new variations on action and pursuit scenes…. For me, it’s probably somewhere at the top of the bottom half of my top ten Bond movies (if that makes sense!), let’s say sixth or seventh overall.

Cork: It is in the top five for me. For years, I proclaimed it my favorite Bond film. I do recognize that parts are slow, that some scenes are a complete mess, that unless you are very forgiving the out-of-control hydrofoil looks absurd, that the back projection does some scenes no favors, that one can plant, grow and harvest crops during the sinking and camouflaging of the Vulcan and the stealing of the bombs, that Bond wears a magic color-changing diver’s mask, and one would get very drunk in a game based on the number of times Bond’s watch changes from his Rolex to the Breitling TopTime and back. But I love the film just the same. It has some of the most fun dialog of the series (”You swim like a man.” “So do you.” “Well, I’ve had quite a bit of practice.”), some of the sexiest Bond women moments (Fiona Volpe asking Bond to give her something to wear), some great moments of villainy (”This for heat; these for cold—applied scientifically and slowly, very, very slowly…”) and brilliant action.

Pfeiffer: There are a lot of people who think Thunderball is a rather boring film. My wife and daughter each saw it once and never wanted to watch it again. I disagree entirely. There are some rather slow-moving scenes, but they only appear to be a bit boring to me after having seen the film dozens of times. I don’t recall thinking it was slow when I first saw it, but then again, “boring” is in the eye of the beholder. I would say it still holds up as great entertainment. I would rank it in the top five Bond films.

Rubin: I would place it in 5th position—behind Goldfinger, Casino Royale, From Russia with Love, and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Some people have complained over the years that its first third is very slow, but I disagree.

Rye: On my personal list of the Top 10 Bond Films Thunderball is placed at Number 3, after From Russia with Love and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. The first three James Bond films had been undoubtedly great entertainment, but Thunderball was indeed the biggest Bond of all! Regardless what you might have read anywhere else in the last 50 years, Thunderballis the highest-grossing Bond film of the series—more people saw that film in a cinema than any other Bond film! Simply, nothing could top it! Every successful fad had its time—and 1965 and Thunderball was James Bond’s zenith year. The film was released at the height of Bondmania and everyone couldn’t get enough of Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, as the Italians had nicknamed him, which the filmmakers neatly used as an in-joke in one of the film’s cutest set pieces…. Sean Connery’s performance in Thunderball must rank as his best as Bond, as he glides effortlessly through the narrative dispensing lust and death in equal dispassionate measure. Richard Maibaum’s and John Hopkins’ script sparkles with style and panache as Bond plays cat and mouse with Emilio Largo and Fiona Volpe, SPECTRE’s agents of doom in The Bahamas—and the Blofeld and SPECTRE organization in this 1965 film seem a far more tangible, impressive and dangerous threat than in 2015’s woefully cartoonish SPECTRE.

Scivally: Many of the “old guard” Bond fans—which is to say, those of us over 50 who were first introduced to the character through the films of Sean Connery—place Thunderball in the Top 3 films of the series, if not the number one film. My top 3 are From Russia with Love, Goldfinger and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. I’m not sure Thunderball would even be in the Top 5 for me, but it would make the Top 10. For me, it’s a bit of an uneven mix; it has a fantastic pre-credits fight, ending with the jetpack escape, and the scene in SPECTRE headquarters is cool, but then the pace starts to flag as we’re off to Shrublands, and then into the theft of the Vulcan bomber, a sequence that drags on far too long and kills the film’s forward momentum. After that, we finally get to the Bahamas, where the tension gradually increases as Bond taunts Largo and courts Domino and puts the pieces together, all capped off by the climactic large-scale underwater battle. But even that is undercut by the comically under-cranked footage in Bond’s fight with Largo on the Disco Volante, and—for my money—it’s in this film that Sean Connery begins exhibiting the boredom with the role of Bond that also undercut You Only Live Twice.

Coate: In what way was Adolfo Celi’s Largo a memorable villain?

Burlingame: He’s so dark, so serious, so dangerous, so malevolent. I still freeze up a little when I see him on screen. It was great casting. And by 1965, we were four films into the series and Bond had been well-established as a hero for the ages, someone whose skill and good luck was unbeatable. So establishing a villain who was formidable enough to take on the seemingly indestructible 007 became a much bigger challenge. Celi’s Largo met the standard.

Caplen: I find it curious that the omnipotent, omnipresent “guardian” of Domino Derval wears an eye patch. That aside, Largo appears relatively calm throughout the film, which is quite the contrast to the fiery Fiona Volpe he employs. I think she is the much more memorable villain insofar as what she represents and contributes to the Bond Girl archetype. I fully deconstruct Fiona Volpe in Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond and demonstrate how her seeming independence and assertiveness are mere facades.

Chapman: He’s one of the best villains in the series, in my opinion. He’s a plausible megalomaniac—more so than Goldfinger, as marvelous as Gert Frobe is—and provides an excellent antagonist for Connery’s Bond. Adolfo Celi has great physical presence and (thanks to Robert Rietty’s dubbing) a superb vocal delivery. His manner and physical appearance are also close to the character in Fleming’s book: Thunderball was made pretty close to the book and the early films were much closer to Fleming than they became later. Largo is clever but also represents a physical threat, and has a good fight with Bond at the end of the film. I prefer those sorts of villains to the Drax/Stromberg type who have to rely on their henchmen to do the physical stuff. Thunderball also brings out the way in which Largo manipulates/controls Domino who is unable to escape from him. It’s not really until Sanchez and Lupe in Licence to Kill that another Bond film considered the dynamic between villain and mistress.

Cork: Largo is one of the greatest Bond villains, but his performance is equal parts Robert Rietty and Adolfo Celi. Rietty’s voice work with Largo lifts that character up and beyond what any single actor could do. It is a shame that voice-actors in the Bond films do not get more credit. That said, Celi holds every scene he is in. His glance up when his fellow SPECTRE member is electrocuted, his ability to move from genial grin to withering stare is perfect. He is a pirate, so he has an eye patch, but it is never played for laughs. Like the best of the Bond villains, he seems to get smarter as the film continues. He gets frustrated with Bond, but his confidence is never shaken, his certainty never wavering, his evil intent never in doubt. I love that the film has a solid logic for Largo and Bond’s interactions. Largo knows Bond is working for British Intelligence, but it serves his purpose to be polite to 007 so that the authorities do not try to arrest him. For Bond, he knows Largo is involved, but he cannot try to do anything to Largo until the bombs are recovered. So they play this charade that I quite enjoy. He’s an active villain, physically able to dole out punishment and to take it. Even in death, he tries to seal 007’s fate. Largo rules.

Pfeiffer: Adolfo Celi was an inspired choice as Largo. He’s a fine actor and every bit as dashing and handsome as Bond. He had the requisite self-confidence to stand up to Sean Connery on screen and not be overshadowed, which is quite a feat. He also did justice to the stylish clothing he wore. (I wonder why only Italian men look natural by draping their coats over their shoulders!) Celi was already a well-regarded character actor and 1965 was a good year for him. In addition to appearing in Thunderball, he also had major roles in two other high profile movies: The Agony and the Ecstasy and Von Ryan’s Express. My only regret is that editor Peter Hunt had a mania for dubbing many key actors in the films even if they spoke English perfectly well, as Celi did. I would have preferred that his own voice be heard in the film. Incidentally, he technically made another movie with Sean Connery: the political thriller The Next Man in 1976, but unfortunately they never shared the screen together. As for the character of Largo, he was actually not the top dog at SPECTRE, which might have diminished him a bit in terms of stature. He still had to take orders from and report to Blofeld. Nevertheless, the character was sufficiently intriguing to rank among the more memorable Bond villains. Any screen villain is better if he isn’t presented as a mustache-twirling, one-note depiction of evil. In the case of Largo, he is charming, polite and quite the lady’s man, which reminds us that the great real life villains often have the same qualities.

Rubin: Adolfo Celi was solid, commanding, suave, ruthless and worthy as a Bond opponent. He’s more an international businessman than a megalomaniac, but I liked him, and his demise from Domino’s spear was very effective, given the fact that the last time he was seen, he was torturing her.

Rye: Although Adolfo Celi’s voice was dubbed in its entirety in Thunderball by the late Robert Rietty, Celi’s performance and physical presence makes Largo an adversary worthy of Connery’s Bond, and he makes a memorable villain in the classic style; the scene at the Cafe Martinique casino between Bond and Largo, where 007 drops pointed remarks about SPECTRE into the conversation, taunting Largo across the gaming table, remains among the very best Bond/villain meetings in the series—and Connery and Celi/Rietty play it for all it’s worth!

Scivally: Honestly, I never thought Adolfo Celi’s Emilio Largo was a particularly memorable villain. Admittedly, any villain who came after Gert Frobe’s charismatic Goldfinger was bound to suffer by comparison, but Celi is so cool and reserved he almost ceases to exist. He’s such a charmless, cruel character that one wonders what Domino, or any woman, could ever have seen in him. For me, Celi’s is a one-note performance.

Coate: In what way was Claudine Auger’s Domino a memorable Bond Girl?

Caplen: Many women, including Faye Dunaway and Raquel Welch, competed for the part of Domino, which was described at the time as the most complex and demanding of any female lead in the series. This is, of course, a curious description. In my complete analysis of Domino, I explore the extent to which she is a kept woman who finds herself frequently overpowered by men. Largo, as her supposed “guardian,” carefully monitors Domino’s activities and controls her actions. Then Domino meets Bond, who inundates her with questions, takes complete control of their dynamic from the moment they meet, and manipulates her as he sees fit…. Indeed, Domino is memorable and an important addition to the Bond Girl continuum because she is weak. Domino is a foil to Fiona Volpe, whose hypersexuality, villainy, and unwillingness to succumb to Bond’s sexual prowess offer a striking image of perceived independence and authority. Domino, on the other hand, is purely a submissive instrument through which Bond can obtain sexual gratification and complete his mission. He places her in harm’s way to advance his interests and seems to care little about her ultimate fate. Perhaps it is his insouciance that leads to a few interesting plot twists at the conclusion of the film.

Chapman: To be honest, I prefer Kim Basinger as Domino in Never Say Never Again (McClory’s 1983 remake of Thunderball), if it’s not sacrilege to say so! Claudine Auger has all the necessary physical attributes of a Bond girl, and looks athletic, as Fleming’s character is described, though she has the wrong color hair (come to think of it most of the early Bond girls have different color hair from the books). But I find her performance just a little bland, not as memorable as Ursula Andress, Daniela Bianchi or Honor Blackman in the preceding three films. For me the really memorable Bond girl in Thunderball is Fiona Volpe (Luciana Paluzzi)—the first major “bad girl” role in a Bond movie and the archetype of the sexy, confident villainess, a forerunner of Helga Brandt, Xenia Onatopp and the rest…. The difference beyond Domino and Fiona is summed up in their reactions after sleeping with Bond. “So that’s why you make love to me,” Domino whimpers after Bond tells her that her brother is dead and Largo killed him: she meekly acquiesces to Bond and doesn’t seem to get angry that he’s apparently seduced her in order to get her onto his side. Contrast that to Fiona who throws Bond’s “arrogance” back in his face and proudly asserts that she can’t be converted to the side of goodness and right.

Cork: Claudine Auger is certainly one of the most physically beautiful women in the world. She has a sultry, confident sexuality about her, but she gives the role of Domino real vulnerability. She, too, was completely dubbed for the film. Nikki van der Zyl, who provided the voice, did momentous work on the Bond films from Dr. No through to The Man with the Golden Gun. Her voice work is utterly charming, just perfect for the part. Also interesting to me is that our introduction to Domino is while she is swimming underwater, and that lovely woman is not Claudine Auger. It is Evelyne Boren, the wife of the underwater cinematographer, Lamar Boren. Evelyne is a very talented artist…. Domino is a fantastic character. I like that she can be her own person with her own story. There is no need for her to be Bond’s equivalent when it comes to action, but she can be his superior when it comes to humanity. She is world-weary, but never naive, longing, but never needy. In the end, though, through her relationship with Bond, she finds the strength to seal Largo’s fate. I find Domino absolutely compelling as a character. The scene where Bond gives her the watch and dog tags was shot both on Love Beach on New Providence Island and back in the studio at Pinewood, and the scene like so many others is a mess. Bond says he can’t tell her what it’s all about, but moments later he is telling her what it is all about. Yet, the human element of the scene is wonderfully done. Auger and van der Zyl’s performances are consistent and heartfelt. It is one of the few moments in the series where I feel Connery is out-acted in a scene. That combination of strength, confidence, sexuality and vulnerability, makes Domino one of my favorites of the series.

Pfeiffer: The early Bond girls were often victims of tragic circumstances. Honey Ryder was an orphan who had to fend for herself after suffering sexual abuse. Tania in From Russia with Love is ordered by her superiors to sleep with an enemy agent she has never met. Tilly Masterson in Goldfinger is out to avenge the murder of her sister. Domino is also a somewhat tragic figure. She is a very young woman who has let the lure of a charismatic man and the trappings of luxury lure her into a life she can no longer escape. She clearly is unhappy being Largo’s “kept woman” but there is no easy way out. Her situation grows even more tragic when she learns that her lover, Largo, has murdered her brother. I do wish the script had provided more background on the character of Domino, as she could have been presented in a far more interesting and fleshed-out manner. Still, she remains sufficiently interesting to engage the viewer in her dilemma of having to risk her life to avenge her brother. As for Claudine Auger, she certainly fits the part physically, but like so many actors from the early films, it’s difficult to fully evaluate her performance because she was dubbed.

Rubin: I just can’t say enough about Claudine Auger. She was a stunner, and she had all the accessories necessary for a great Bond girl, times ten. Loved her wardrobe, or lack thereof. Looks great in a bikini, or an evening dress, and her scenes with Bond are very romantic. Other than Diana Rigg’s Tracy in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, I would say she’s the most compatible Bond girl for 007. He could do much worse.

Rye: Thunderball boasts the most impressive quartet of female flesh of any of the Bond films; while Claudine Auger’s Domino is a physically impressive looking woman, especially in her black & white bikini (Domino—geddit!), it’s her voice, dubbed by Nikki van der Zyl, that really carries off the performance of a vulnerable young woman who has drifted into shady company and been seduced by Largo’s “good life,” becoming a powerful and dangerous criminal’s plaything; a “kept woman,” as she tells Bond…. But the stand out Bond Girl in Thunderball, expertly played by Luciana Paluzzi, is Fiona Volpe, who remains the strongest written female character in the entire Bond series, with her dialogue bristling in every scene in which she appears. Sadly, Thunderball loses much of its tension, urgency and bite after Fiona exits the narrative, courtesy of a SPECTRE bullet meant for Bond.

Scivally: Domino is one of the “angel with one wing down” Bond girls, a poor victim of circumstances who is a “kept woman” because her brother has been swept up in Largo’s scheme. Like almost every character in this movie except Fiona Volpe, she is aloof and, consequently, hard to sympathize with, or feel sympathy for. Fiona, on the other hand, is almost like a female Bond, a lethal assassin with a healthy sexual appetite, and is played with genuine spark by Lucianna Paluzzi. Paluzzi injects a sense of fun into her scenes that is missing from much of the rest of the film, and consequently, is more memorable than Claudine Auger, who looks stunning but is otherwise pretty vapid.

Coate: Thunderball was the first 007 movie produced in ’Scope. How did this change in photography and projection style affect the movie (and series)?

Chapman: Yes, Thunderball was the first Bond movie produced in widescreen: Panavision, which had more or less become the industry standard for anamorphic ’scope cinematography in the early to mid-1960s. In a sense it’s something of a mystery why the previous films were not shot in widescreen. It can’t have been a budgetary factor as widescreen wasn’t so expensive by this time and many films with a lower budget than Dr. No used it. So it must have been an aesthetic choice not to use it in the early films, maybe down to cinematographer Ted Moore…. I don’t have any firm evidence to support this theory, but it may have been that the decision to use Panavision for Thunderball had something to do with Kevin McClory. The trade press announcement for the unmade James Bond of the Secret Service in October 1959 said that it was to be shot in Todd-AO—what might be called a “super” or “special” widescreen process developed by Mike Todd reserved for a handful of big-ticket films. (McClory had worked as a location manager for Todd’s production of Around the World in Eighty Days.) So McClory had always envisioned the film being in widescreen…. It may also have had something to do with the amount of underwater shooting. The wider frame allows more visual interest in the shot, which is important when the movement is slower…. How does Panavision affect the “look” of the film? On one level it’s part of the upscaling of production values: Thunderball was promoted as a “big” film (”Here Comes the Biggest Bond of All”). On another level it allows the staging of sequences like the Junkanoo parade which made full use of the width of the screen. And scenes such as the US SEALs parachuting into the sea look pretty impressive too. A downside is that when the film is shown on television it’s usually in a pan-and-scan version which can miss out key details. When I first recorded Thunderball off air before the films were available in letterbox, the night scene at Shrublands where Bond finds Derval’s body and knocks out Lippe never made sense as the scan cut off Lippe hiding at the edge of the frame.

Cork: One of the major contributions of Kevin McClory to the look and style of Thunderball was that he insisted it be shot anamorphic (technically Panavision’s process, not 20th Century Fox’s CinemaScope). McClory had been close to Michael Todd, who, after the success of Cinerama, bankrolled his own innovative widescreen format—Todd-AO. McClory was keenly aware that two of the early CinemaScope successes had featured lengthy underwater sequences: Beneath the 12-Mile Reef and, a year later, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. They helped inspire McClory’s vision for Thunderball when the script was in development. When McClory made the deal to work with Broccoli and Saltzman, he argued to United Artists that the original screenplays envisioned Thunderball as an event film, shot in anamorphic, and, if he had his way, presented as a roadshow…. No doubt about it, anamorphic changed James Bond. McClory’s insistence did make Bond feel bigger, made his world seem even larger and more epic. There is something about the 2.35:1 (and wider) ratio(s) that works for epic storytelling and visuals. With Bond, this can be most clearly seen in Maurice Binder’s titles which really use the space beautifully. In contrast, in the body of the film, shots that took full advantage of the ratio were rare. Filmmakers knew that in many international markets (and a good portion of domestic markets, too), projectionists would simply let the sides of a ’scope film play off the screen and on the curtain (or even mask the frame). They also knew that networks were paying big money for color feature films as part of their push to transition to all-color broadcasts in the US. This, too, helped limit the innovative compositions during the mid-60s. So while Thunderball is a great-looking film, like most anamorphic films of the era, the extremes of the frame are often completely empty, with most of the action taking place in the 1.33:1 TV safe area, and I’d guess that in 95% of the remaining shots, nothing of importance is out of the 1:85:1 lines…. I love that Bond embraced anamorphic with Thunderball. McClory was right that it was the proper choice for this story, and it is a tradition carried on to this day. When you look at those shots of the Day of the Dead parade in SPECTRE, there is more than one reason it reminds one of the epic feel of Thunderball, and that is a good thing. Bond’s world should always feel larger, wider and more epic than ours, and that, for me, is one thing anamorphic helps bring to life.

Pfeiffer: The decision to film Thunderball in a widescreen process illustrates why it would have been inappropriate to have gone with this as the first film in the series. There is no way the producers could have done justice to the epic scale of the movie’s climax if it had been shot in a flat format. By the time Thunderball went into production, United Artists knew they didn’t have a “flash in the pan” success and that the series had real legs. Thus, there was no hesitation to provide the considerable budget it took to give the film a far richer looker than its predecessors enjoyed. The widescreen format works superbly for this particular Bond film and adds immeasurably to the enjoyment of watching it repeatedly.

Rubin: I’m not a real techie when it comes to projection formats, but I can say that Thunderball was a truly spectacular Bond film from start to finish, and it needed the widescreen presentation—especially when you consider such spectacular set pieces as the jet pack teaser, the Junkanoo, the helicopter search for the downed bomber, and, of course, the climactic underwater battle. Even the meeting in the giant conference room benefitted from a bigger format. This is one of my favorite Bond films because of the spectacle—a realistic spectacle.

Rye: The switch to the Panavision widescreen format (2.35:1) with Thunderball enabled the Bond series to break out of the restrictive confines of the Academy ratio format (1.37:1) that the first three films in the series—Dr. No (1962), From Russia with Love (1963), Goldfinger (1964)—were shot in, and create stunning vistas on location and show off the magnificent set designs of Ken Adam even more marvelously. (The early films were shot in the Academy format but not screened that way, so the compositions were not square but rectangular in the cinema. In the UK they were matted to 1:66:1 and 1:85:1 in the USA.) Bond really became BIG in this format, and when the filmmakers decided to return to the Academy format with Live And Let Die (1973) and The Man With The Golden Gun (1974), the films suffered in their sense of importance and lost their grandiose scale, which is why after the less than wonderful critical reception that greeted Golden Gun it was decided to return to Panavision again for The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)—and it paid off on every level possible, with Roger Moore’s third (and arguably most popular) appearance in his seven-film tenure as agent 007 breaking box-office records around the world.

Scivally: The decision to film Thunderball in ’scope gave Terence Young a broader, wider palette in which to present his film, showing off not only Ken Adam’s fine sets to full advantage but also giving greater impact to the islands and ocean setting. But it also had an impact beyond the aesthetic; filming in ’scope was an announcement that Bond was now epic, on a level with roadshow films and blockbusters like Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia. Dr. No, by comparison, looks like a programmer, a 1940s detective thriller with the added benefit of color. But after the phenomenal success of Goldfinger, the 007 films became multimedia events, with lavish budgets and huge promotional campaigns, and this is reflected in the widescreen formats of Thunderball and the next three Bond films (they returned to standard ratio for Roger Moore’s first two outings, after the declining box-office of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever, but went all-in again with the spectacular The Spy Who Loved Me, remaining widescreen ever since). Of course, the switch to ’scope meant that Thunderball couldn’t re-use any footage from previous films, so the famous gunbarrel opening had to be reshot. As a result, for the first time in the series, we see Sean Connery as 007 doing the walk, spin and shoot, instead of stuntman Bob Simmons.

Coate: What is the legacy of Thunderball?

Caplen: Thunderball had a hard act to follow given the success of Goldfinger. And yet, Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli and Harry Saltzman outdid themselves and ultimately produced a film that, despite some harsh critiques at the time, set box-office records, won an Oscar, became the most successful 007 film of the 1960s, and remains one of the highest rated James Bond adventures. That Thunderball could surpass Goldfinger, a feat that seemed improbable at the time, demonstrates not only the quality of Thunderball as a film but the true vitality of the franchise…. It has been written that Thunderball transformed James Bond into a cultural phenomenon, and that is quite an apt observation. Thunderball provided the necessary momentum that has kept the series fresh and exciting five decades later. As I explain in my academic study of the women in the James Bond franchise, Thunderball’s various representations of female characters—Patricia Fearing, Paula Caplan, Fiona Volpe, and Domino Derval—helped reinforce the franchise’s presentation of an archetype of the “ideal” woman, an image subsequent films could develop, perpetuate, and refine for over a decade.

Chapman: Put simply, I think Thunderball sums up the 1960s Bond better than any of the films, even Goldfinger. It’s the most successful at the box-office in real terms and is likely to remain so.

Cork: No Bond film has left a larger shadow than Thunderball. By early 1964, Kevin McClory and Charles K. Feldman both had the rights make films from James Bond novels, and the grosses of From Russia with Love in the UK (where it became the highest-grossing film ever) proved that these were valuable properties. For Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, the idea of competing with rival Bond films was a nightmare. The last thing they wanted was another partner. They decided they could weather one rival Bond film but not two. Cubby had a good relationship with Feldman, and Feldman had a deal at United Artists, so they quickly tried to negotiate with Feldman to make Casino Royale as the follow up to Goldfinger or possibly On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (the title originally slated to follow Goldfinger). Feldman, though, would not budge on his share of the profits. UA made concessions, but their deal would have left Cubby and Harry with just 20% of the profits rather than their usual 60%. Cubby and Harry were stuck, and Feldman knew it. They could not make a deal with Kevin McClory without severely damaging their relationship with Ian Fleming. Then in August, 1964, Ian Fleming died. Suddenly, Charles K. Feldman found himself out of a deal and an agreement with McClory was struck shortly after the UK release of Goldfinger (early prints of Goldfinger announce On Her Majesty’s Secret Service as the next Bond). That agreement with McClory and all the legal fallout from it shapes the Bond franchise in more ways than one would expect. It is the reason Blofeld disappears from the franchise, the reason The Spy Who Loved Me was re-written extensively, the reason Sean Connery returns as Bond in 1983, the reason the Bond producers and MGM now own Never Say Never Again and the CBS television version of Casino Royale and were able to purchase Columbia’s interest in the 1967 feature film of Casino Royale. Without that agreement, Casino Royale likely becomes a 1960s Sean Connery Bond film. Without that agreement, SPECTRE never gets made…. Thunderball was an incredibly difficult film to make. All the key persons involved had bitter feelings about the film, despite its success. On a location scouting trip, Kevin McClory, tired of being treated as a second-class partner, arranged to have himself breeze through customs in Nassau while Cubby was stopped and his luggage searched. Cubby threatened to move the film to Jamaica. Cubby was upset at Harry’s other film projects, and Harry felt his creative voice and business ideas were being ignored. During the filming, Cubby and Harry felt that Terence Young was losing control of the film, then, when they left the Bahamas, they discovered that his hotel bill was through the roof. They confronted him at the end of principal photography and demanded he pay the overages. Young, upset, then left the film. Cubby and Harry turned to editor Peter Hunt who found scenes with shots missing and mountains of film of underwater sequences that were poorly logged and slated. The location sound was problematic. Hunt’s first assembly of the film ran four and a half hours, a figure given by the film’s publicist to Variety. Hunt agreed to try to save the film, but he needed to reshoot some material, and he felt that Cubby and Harry had agreed to allow him to direct the next Bond film in exchange for his diligent work. He became bitter for a while when that didn’t happen with You Only Live Twice. The studio had an October release date set, complete with cross-promotion advertising deals, but Hunt candidly told the studio that he could not make the film “good” unless that date was moved back. UA put a brave face on it, but they were not happy, blaming Cubby and Harry. Thunderball became the only Bond film to move its release date significantly after the end of principal photography. During the production of Thunderball, Sean Connery became aware that both Dean Martin and James Coburn had signed to do spy spoof series with lucrative deals that paid them far more than him, so he wasn’t happy. John Barry wasn’t happy with the very short scoring schedule and the last-minute need for a new theme song. Even after it opened, the producers felt that John Stears had taken too much credit for the effects work, so they never told him about his nomination for Best Special Effects and instead sent underwater engineer Jordan Klein to the Oscars. Stears found out he had won when the statuette arrived in the post. There was a lot of ill-will that tempered the film’s amazing success…. What I love is that none of that comes across onscreen. Thunderball is a smooth, confident, lavish film. It is grand in scale in a way that has shaped every Bond film to follow. It defined the multi-unit, big set-piece approach to filmmaking that is still used in the Bond films today. It is the definition of big-screen entertainment. Thunderball is a remarkably influential film beyond the obvious spy spoofs. You can see the Disco Volante fight in Spielberg’s truck fight in Raiders of the Lost Ark and the speedboat fight in Patriot Games. You can see the Junkanoo in the St. Patrick’s Day parade scene in The Fugitive. You can see the Skyhook used in The Dark Knight. Thunderball’s legacy is that the Bond films became epics, global events, overwhelming visual spectacles, films where no one ever says that there is too much of a good thing.

Pfeiffer:Thunderball’s legacy is that, among hardcore Bond fans, the film still resonates so well and is routinely cited as one of the best films of the series. Its success also put the Bond merchandise business into high gear and helped secure the sizable budgets that the producers needed to ensure that each successive movie looked just as opulent, if not more so. Broccoli and Saltzman never fell victim to what I call the “Planet of the Apes Syndrome,” which is producing sequels that were cheaper and less impressive than the original. The Bond films have had some high profile artistic misses, but even the worst movies boast impressive production values. I think that the greatest stroke of luck the producers had occurred when United Artists decided to forego plans to make Thunderball the first Bond film and instead went with Dr. No. Although the rumor mill has attributed this to the on-going litigation involving rights to the novel that resulted in a high profile lawsuit against Ian Fleming, David Picker, who was head of production for UA, tells me that the primary reason was that he recognized that in order to do justice to the scope of Thunderball, the budget would have to be exponentially higher. He showed good judgment. By the time the film went into production, it had a budget of over $5 million compared to Dr. No, which cost a little over $1 million. I think that if Thunderball had been made first, we may not be writing and talking about the film 50 years later.

Rubin: Thunderball will always be the “big one.” When Bond was bigger than anything on the planet, except maybe the Beatles.

Rye: When I’m asked which film in the entire Bond series someone should watch that encapsulates the essence of what James Bond is all about, I unhesitatingly nominate Thunderball. For me, Thunderball still remains the strongest example on film of the link between the original character created by Ian Fleming and the flesh and blood man breathed life into by Sean Connery…. In its 50th anniversary year Thunderball still holds up as a sophisticated and exciting entertainment (including the innovative and fascinating underwater sequences), and remains a lasting testament of excellence to the exceptional team of talented men and women responsible for bringing the biggest Bond of all to the cinema screen.

Scivally: Upon its release, Thunderball quickly became one of the top-grossing films of all time. It clearly resonated with audiences of the period, who were willing to stand in long lines for its round-the-clock 24-hour screenings. It was featured in major magazines around the world, generating massive awareness of James Bond, and set the standard for all the big-budget action-adventure extravaganzas that would follow.

Coate: Thank you, everyone, for participating and for sharing your thoughts about Thunderball on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

The Digital Bits is pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the 20th anniversary of the release of GoldenEye, the 17th (official) cinematic James Bond adventure and, most notably, the first to star Pierce Brosnan as Agent 007.

As with our previous 007 articles (available here, here, here, and here), The Bits continues the series with this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of James Bond authorities who discuss the virtues and shortcomings of GoldenEye and analyze whether or not the passage of time has been kind to the film. [Read on here...]

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

The participants…

Robert A. Caplen is an attorney and the author of Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (Xlibris, 2010).

James Chapman is a Professor of Film Studies at the University of Leicester and is the author of Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films (Tauris, 2007). His other books include Inside the Tardis: The Worlds of Doctor Who—A Cultural History (Tauris, 2006), Saints and Avengers: British Adventure Series of the 1960s (Tauris, 2002), and (with Nicholas J. Cull) Projecting Empire: Imperialism and Popular Cinema (Tauris, 2009). Chapman is also a Council member of the International Association for Media and History and is Editor of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television.

John Cork is the author (with Bruce Scivally) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He also wrote (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek.He recently wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman); the film is available on iTunes, Google Play and other streaming platforms.

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies, a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Lisa Funnell is the editor of For His Eyes Only: The Women of James Bond (Wallflower, 2015). She is Assistant Professor, Women’s and Gender Studies Program and Affiliate Faculty, Film and Media Studies Program at the University of Oklahoma. Her other books include Warrior Women: Gender, Race, and the Transnational Chinese Action Star (State University of New York, 2015) and (with Philippa Gates) Transnational Asian Identities in Pan-Pacific Cinemas: The Reel Asian Exchange (Routledge, 2011).

Mark O’Connell is a punditeer, the grandson of Bond producer Cubby Broccoli’s chauffeur, and the author of Catching Bullets: Memoirs of a Bond Fan (Splendid Books, 2012).

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001), and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.”

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), and Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 2015). As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He is the Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course) and cueing up the soundtrack album to GoldenEye, and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is GoldenEye worthy of celebration on its 20th anniversary?

Robert A. Caplen: Has it really been twenty years since Pierce Brosnan ended the Bond franchise’s longest hiatus?! Timothy Dalton’s last film, Licence to Kill, was released in June 1989; the Berlin Wall came down five months later. GoldenEye, with its lavish title sequence that depicts the toppling of the Soviet Union and global geopolitical changes, ushered in a new era by introducing Bond and audiences to the post-Cold War era. It marked the appearance of Dame Judy Dench as M, who pulls no punches and criticizes Bond’s cavalier, sexist, and misogynist attitude as a “relic of the Cold War.” Restoring the luxury, glamour, and peccadilloes of Agent 007 in a manner that is reminiscent of the Sean Connery era while simultaneously placing James Bond under the supervision of a female authority figure, GoldenEye is undoubtedly an important installment in the James Bond oeuvre and, arguably, Pierce Brosnan’s most successful mission.

James Chapman:GoldenEye might not be the best Bond movie ever but it is one of the most important in the series’ history as it was the film that revived the franchise after the hiatus of the early 1990s. The reasons for that have been well documented and perhaps we needn’t go over them again here. The legal disputes between Eon/Danjaq and MGM were part of it, but I think a more fundamental issue was the feeling that Bond had lost ground to other action-adventure franchises: Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Speed, the Schwarzenegger and Stallone films. Licence to Kill was down at the box-office and did very poorly in the US market (about $35 million—way below Lethal Weapon 2 and Batman that summer). It’s hard to credit it now, but there was a lot of speculation in the early 1990s that Bond was finished—some very respected film critics and industry figures were suggesting that Bond was a relic of the past. And the longer the hiatus went on, the more plausible that view seemed…. GoldenEye did very good box-office—over $100 million in the US market, which by then had become the benchmark for a major success, and around $331 million worldwide—and proved the naysayers wrong. I think its importance was that it proved there was still a market for a Bond movie. One of the things I like most about it is that it addresses the charges that had been made against Bond—that he was an outmoded and chauvinistic heroic archetype—by voicing them itself through the agency of a female authority figure (i.e. Judi Dench’s “sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War” line).

John Cork:GoldenEye saved James Bond and MGM. 007’s darkest days were from 1989 until November 1995. In 1990, MGM (which owned United Artists) collapsed in on itself. Raped of much of its library by Ted Turner earlier in the decade and bought through a questionable process of future profit dismemberment by Giancarlo Parretti, Cubby Broccoli and Michael Wilson found Bond trapped at a studio that could no longer operate as a viable business. The trades were filled with stories of the Bond franchise being put up for sale and even predictions that—after the disappointing grosses of Licence to Kill and the fall of the Soviet Empire—007 was dead. After Parretti and his studio team lead by Alan Ladd Jr. left, MGM was owned by the bank Crédit Lyonnais and run by Frank Mancuso Jr. and John Calley. The plan was simple: prove to potential buyers that MGM’s assets were of much greater value than MGM’s debts, and that it was well-positioned to make new hit movies. The industry had serious doubts. In 1993, the studio had failed to revive the Pink Panther series with Son of the Pink Panther, and available cash to produce new films was limited. As far as James Bond went, the studio had no faith in Timothy Dalton’s ability to reprise his role as Bond, forcing him to retire from the role. This meant casting a new Bond, investing heavily in a new film and finding a workable relationship with Cubby Broccoli, Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli. It was no secret at the time that some inside MGM wanted to push Danjaq out of the way, hire a producer like Joel Silver, and control the film internally. The studio decided to position the film as a summer blockbuster for 1995, the launch for what the studio hoped would be a series of hit films in the second half of 1995 that would relaunch MGM as a valuable property that could be sold for a very high price. After the success of Fox’s True Lies in 1994, MGM concluded that GoldenEye needed a tighter script, bigger action and more time. Now, instead of launching MGM’s season of hits, it would come in the middle. Mancuso and Calley had bet everything on the fall of 1995. The studio would release six films from September to December, and literally everything was on the line. Three of the films were bombs: Hackers, Showgirls and Cutthroat Island. Both Get Shorty and Leaving Las Vegas made money for the studio. As far as the industry was concerned, only one film mattered: GoldenEye. The fate of the studio rested in the hands of James Bond, and GoldenEye’s success would not only confidently state that there was profit to be wrung from future 007 films, but it would drive up the value of the Bond catalog. GoldenEye proved all the doubters wrong. Bond’s continued relevance, it turned out, had little to do with Cold War politics or studio equity. It had everything to do with quality. Everyone involved in making GoldenEye was hungry, and it shows. The film is also the introduction of Barbara Broccoli as a key creative voice in the Bond team, the launch of Pierce Bronsan’s career as Bond, and the best evidence that the creative team could take 007 beyond the decades that defined him.

Bill Desowitz:GoldenEye is significant as a turning point with the introduction of Pierce Brosnan and a popular return to a more classic Bond. After a six-year hiatus (the longest in franchise history), fans craved Bond and Brosnan delivered a back to basics approach after the dramatic extreme of Timothy Dalton’s Licence to Kill. With Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli taking over as producers, there was a celebration of the familiar Bond trappings with a renewed sense of action, style and humor, and Brosnan was happy to oblige. At the same time, they successfully answered the question: How did Bond fit in a post-Cold War world? And new director Martin Campbell made it fast-paced and fun. Although Brosnan was initially supposed to succeed Roger Moore, his delay worked out for the best and he was a better Bond.

Lisa Funnell: GoldenEye is an important film because it helped to (re)ignite popular interest in the franchise after a six-year hiatus. The film not only marks the return of the iconic hero to the silver screen but also more pointedly asks if the world still needs James Bond. GoldenEye relays the impression that the world around Bond has changed particularly in terms of its gender politics. This is most evident in the casting of Dame Judi Dench in the role of M, Bond’s boss, as well as the comments she makes to Bond such as: “I think you’re a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War, whose boyish charms, though lost on me, obviously appealed to that young girl I sent out to evaluate you…If you think I don’t have the balls to send a man out to die, your instincts are dead wrong. I’ve no compunction about sending you to your death. But I won’t do it on a whim.” In this (drop-the-mic) speech, M also draws attention to changes in the geopolitical landscape with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It draws attention to the threat of individual actors/cells rather than sovereign nations to the safety of Britain and the world. And so the film answers its own question by demonstrating that we still need James Bond to save the day—a hero who is defined by instincts, touch, and interpersonal relationships. This question has been raised again twenty years later in SPECTRE and broadly applied to the 00 program in light of the digital turn and advances in surveillance technologies like drones.

Mark O’Connell: It marked the official changing of the guard at Eon Headquarters with Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson officially taking the producer reins, a new actor as Bond and a much needed cinematic Vodka martini after a long, long Bond film drought. It also was the cherry bursting moment for a vital new wave of Bond fans and general audiences. To a lot of people GoldenEye is their Dr. No or On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. And if that is their entry point they are not wrong. Too much elitist shepherding happens in Bond fandom. Whilst reworking that recognizable Bond film template, GoldenEye thankfully shatters the templates of what a Bond fan should like and not like.

Lee Pfeiffer: GoldenEye is the film that rescued Bond from the brink of cinematic extinction. At the time producer Cubby Broccoli was at odds with the management team of United Artists, who he blamed for the relatively light domestic grosses for Licence to Kill in 1989. Broccoli swore he would not make another Bond film until a new management team took over. Ultimately, a new team headed by Alan Ladd Jr. and Frank Mancuso took the reins of the struggling studio which was on the brink of bankruptcy. They backed Cubby’s desire to bring Bond back even though the smart money said 007 was an outdated relic of the Cold War. I went to dinner in New York with Cubby and his wife Dana around the time they were preparing for the new film. Cubby said that he was bowing out of the day-to-day production duties and relegating the franchise to the care of “the kids,” meaning his daughter Barbara and stepson Michael G. Wilson. Both of them had long experience working on the franchise and Cubby and Dana felt confident that they could make Bond work again with a new generation of moviegoers. He also rattled off a top secret list of actors that had been screen tested for the role before stating the obvious: the vast majority of people wanted Pierce Brosnan. Actually, Brosnan had been signed for the role in 1986 when Roger Moore retired but NBC did him dirty by renewing his TV series Remington Steele, thus taking him out of the running for the part. Timothy Dalton had replaced him but after a gap of five years off screen, Dalton bowed out and Brosnan finally got his chance. GoldenEye, although modestly budgeted by today’s standards, was still considered a major risk. However, when the teaser trailer was screened months ahead of the opening, confidence was built based on wildly enthusiastic audience reactions. The film opened in New York City at Radio City Music Hall for a gala premiere one week before the British premiere. At the UK premiere, I rather cautiously broached the subject of the U.S. grosses with Michael Wilson. In those days, news traveled slowly so I didn’t know how the film was performing in the States. Wilson smiled broadly and said that the grosses were of blockbuster status. The rest of the world followed suit and proved that there was room indeed for a post-Cold War 007.

Bruce Scivally: GoldenEye is worthy of celebration for being the Bond film that brought 007 into the modern era. Licence to Kill seemed like a glorified TV episode, like Miami Vice on steroids, with an aesthetic more befitting the ’70s than the late 80s. GoldenEye, with a much bigger budget, managed to keep all the elements audiences expected from Bond and make them seem fresh—no small feat for a series then entering its 33rd year. On top of that, the film introduced Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. That alone is cause for celebration. The film also ushered in a new wave of spy mania, with spy films hitting movie screens and spy-themed shows on television in a quantity last seen thirty years earlier, when the one-two punch of Goldfinger and Thunderball made spies the coolest anti-heroes of the 1960s.

Coate: When did you first see GoldenEye and what was your reaction?

Caplen: I was in high school when GoldenEye was released and remember thoroughly enjoying the film. For me, GoldenEye had the feel of a Sean Connery film that was refreshing and exciting. I also remember the television infomercials for the VHS collector’s edition of the films that were linked to the film’s release. I ultimately had at my fingertips a personal library of 007 films, helping pave the way to my becoming a 007 scholar.

Chapman: The Odeon cinema in Sheffield when it was released in 1995. My first thought was simply to be thankful that there was a new Bond movie after six and a half years. And then to be thankful that it was a pretty decent Bond movie—recognizable as a Bond movie and not going down the Lethal Weapon/Die Hard route. I thought the jury might be out on Pierce Brosnan—I’d liked Timothy Dalton’s interpretation of Bond—though I warmed to him. I didn’t think GoldenEye was as good an introduction for Pierce as The Living Daylights had been for Tim. I thought it took a while to get going and that the first half was quite loosely structured. But it really picked up with the St. Petersburg scenes from the Statue Park through to the tank chase…. I have a “theory” (that might be putting it too strongly) that the pre-title sequence of GoldenEye was in a sense writing Dalton’s Bond out of the series’ history, just as Connery’s return in Diamonds seemed to be concerned to erase the memory of Lazenby and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Hence the pre-title of GoldenEye is set in 1986—the year that Brosnan nearly became Bond but was thwarted at the eleventh hour by his Remington Steele contract. It’s as if the film is saying that Brosnan should have been Bond all along.

Cork: I first saw about 40 minutes of cut footage from GoldenEye at Leavesden in the summer of 1995 when I was working on the behind-the-scenes documentaries for the Goldfinger and Thunderball LaserDisc releases. Lee Pfeiffer and I got asked if we wanted to see the assembled footage so far and we jumped at the chance. The first time I saw the entire film was at a sneak screening in Hollywood that was quasi-open to the public. I think I saw it three more times at press screenings before I went to New York for the premiere at Radio City Music Hall! As some know, I had been working with the producers on another project during the development of GoldenEye. I would see Michael France in the office occasionally. After I had finished my work, I would still see Barbara and Michael in Los Angeles when something would bring me into the Danjaq offices, and I would get little updates on what was happening. I got to know Bruce Feirstein during his tenure working on the film, and he, like the late Michael France, is a writer I admired. So, even though I had absolutely nothing to do with GoldenEye, I felt personally invested in it. I had seen the hard work, the nerves, and witnessed some of the normal tug of war with the studio over the development process. So I was really rooting for the film. My reaction was not only that of a fan, but it was like I was watching a friend’s child in a competition: I was rooting for every scene, loved what I was seeing, but constantly on edge about any aspect that I thought could be better. It really took me about six viewings before I could watch the film and completely enjoy it just as a film.

Desowitz: I saw it opening night in Westwood and couldn’t have been more pleased. Brosnan proved that Bond was still relevant with a sense of pride and joy.

Funnell: I first watched GoldenEye at home with my dad. The film was his Christmas gift and we watched it soon after it was unwrapped. Although I cannot recall my exact reaction, two things have always resonated with me. The first is how perfectly suited (pun intended!) Pierce Brosnan was for the role; he looks and feels like James Bond unlike actor Timothy Dalton before him. The second is how differently women are depicted in the film. I love the casting of Dame Judi Dench for the role as M and her questioning of the sexual politics of the franchise. Her critique is supported through the characterization of Natalya Simonova who demands a lot from Bond. With this film, I felt that something had changed in the gender politics of the franchise and I liked this new turn.

O’Connell: I first saw GoldenEye the week it came out and loved it. The atmosphere in the cinema was like a circus—with cheers, chat and a lot of clapping at the right times. That interaction is normally my idea of movie-watching hell, but the crowd were behind the film from those two white dots onwards. I loved that it was a Bond film again—not for the stunts or the music or the big budget caper of it all, but the ridiculous things like that Binder credit font was back, big set British production work was back, the branding of Bond was back (that black and white teaser and the Tina Turner track), film heroes in almost anachronistic shirt and ties were back, society launch parties gone wrong were back and expert model work and remote control helicopters were back!

Pfeiffer: I first saw [the completed] GoldenEye at the Radio City Music Hall premiere. I must confess, I was not enamored with it. Neither were most of the die-hard Bond scholars who were with me that night. Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I thought the overall story line was somewhat smaller-than-life. The villain wants to create chaos in the worldwide financial communities. I thought that was a rather bland concept, although it did prove to be somewhat prophetic. Today, that threat would seem more unnerving as the world is far more linked by on-line transactions. I also thought the musical score by Eric Serra was bland and boring, and that the character of Boris—played by young up-and-comer Alan Cumming, was badly used in the script—particularly his absurd death sequence. However, I’ve seen it a couple of times since it opened in 1995 and it’s grown on me. The good elements play better and the weak elements don’t seem so bad today. I can see why it appealed to a younger generation at the time and I always felt that Pierce did a sensational job in the role of Bond.

Scivally: My first viewing of GoldenEye was at the AMC Century 14 in Century City, California. I remember being somewhat put-off by the techno-pop music under the gunbarrel, and also a little disappointed that the big pre-credits stunt sequence relied on CGI instead of, as with previous Bond films, a dangerous stunt done “for real” by life-risking stuntmen. But I loved the theme song and Daniel Kleinman’s title sequence, and enjoyed the “times have changed, but Bond hasn’t” concept of the film. It certainly looked much more lavish than the previous 007 film, had a good script, taut direction by Martin Campbell, and Pierce Brosnan quickly won me over as the new James Bond. But that music... This film ranks with Never Say Never Again for 007 movies almost totally undone by horrible scores. But by the time the film ended, bad music notwithstanding, I enjoyed it, and so did the opening-night audience. I went back to see it, if memory serves right, two more times in the theater.

Coate: Where do you think GoldenEye ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Caplen: In my view, GoldenEye is Pierce Brosnan’s best performance as James Bond. It has a lighter tone than the Timothy Dalton missions that preceded it but eschews the gimmickry of the Roger Moore era. It’s arguably the best 007 film from the 1985-2002 period.

Chapman: On balance I’d say it’s a fair-to-middling entry in the series. Not one of my absolute favorites but not one of my least favorites either. Mid-table respectability…. From a scripting point of view I think it’s the best of Brosnan’s four Bonds, though now I prefer Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough (the first half of it at least) over GoldenEye despite their flaws. They’d had plenty of time to polish the script for GoldenEye. Tomorrow Never Dies in contrast was a mess, but the action sequences seemed more exciting than GoldenEye.

Cork: It is very, very hard for me to divorce myself from what I think the film means to the series and just focus on the film itself. That said, back in 2012, my son and I watched all the Bond films in order as part of a Skyfall marathon. I actually ranked GoldenEye at 10th on that list. But if I had to make a list of the absolutely essential Bond films to watch, GoldenEye would be on the short-list. It is a film that defines Bond for the 1990s. It is a film that took Bond to an entirely new level. I have lots of little quibbles with the film, but the scenes with M, the joy of watching Famke Janssen, and the feeling that Pierce Brosnan was born to play Bond and play him well, all of that lifts the film up. So take my mid-level ranking knowing that it is conflicted. The film plays like gangbusters. Everyone should see GoldenEye.

Desowitz: I would rank it as the best of the Brosnans and somewhere in the middle of the pack overall. It was straight ahead with none of the glib or fantastical excesses that would hamper the later Brosnan films.

Funnell: I think that GoldenEye has stood the test of time and remains one of the most exciting films of the series. The film was directed by Martin Campbell who also directed Casino Royale. Campbell seems to have the “Midas touch” when it comes to successfully reintroducing a new actor in the role of James Bond and re-visioning the series. If the producers decide to replace Daniel Craig in the next Bond film, I hope they consider hiring Campbell as the director.

O’Connell: Like a lot of Bond movies—The Spy Who Loved Me, Live and Let Die, The Living Daylights, Casino Royale and, to a degree, SPECTRE—it was a crossroads 007 film that allowed the series to continue. Every now and then a Bond movie puts its neck on the line to justify 007’s very existence. GoldenEye is a prime example, if not THE prime example. GoldenEye is still part of that John Glen era of 007 movie making—with the older Bond guard (Syd Cain, Derek Meddings, John Richardson, Remy Julienne) meeting the (then) new bearers of the production flame (Chris Corbould, Danny Kleinman, Andrew Noakes and Lindy Hemming). I always say that the subsequent Tomorrow Never Dies is Brosnan’s best Bond film (and one of my personal top entries), but GoldenEye is an unabashed 007 movie with the recipe book of Bond open for all to see. Twenty years later one its successes is how it utterly relishes being a Bond movie.

Pfeiffer: I would place GoldenEye probably in the middle of the pack, certainly below the Connery/Lazenby films and some of the Moores. I also favor both Dalton movies over it, but it’s better than some of Pierce’s later efforts and certainly superior to The Man with the Golden Gun and A View to a Kill.

Scivally: For me, GoldenEye ranks in the Top Ten Bond films, but not the Top Five. Although there’s much of Tomorrow Never Dies to recommend it, I felt the ending of that one was unsatisfying. GoldenEye—aside from that damn music—holds together from beginning to end better, and is my favorite of the Pierce Brosnan Bonds. And as a bonus, it has Famke Janssen as one of the sexiest henchwomen ever.

Coate: Compare and contrast Pierce Brosnan’s inaugural performance as Agent 007 with that of the other actors who have portrayed the character?

Caplen: Pierce Brosnan seems to balance the seriousness with which Timothy Dalton approached the role of James Bond with the energetic charm and sexual charisma that Sean Connery imbued in the character. But Brosnan’s performance in GoldenEye has, in my view, a different tone than his subsequent missions, which seem less inspiring as they struggle to define James Bond in the post-Cold War era.

Chapman: Watching it now, I’m struck my how young he looks. In the later films, as he bulked out a bit and his temples started to show flecks of grey, I think he had more gravitas. In fact I think Pierce got better as the films went on, even if the films themselves didn’t. In GoldenEye I don’t think he’s as assured as in the later films. He’s perfectly good in the running, jumping and shooting scenes but some of the dramatic scenes are less confident and—although many regard him as a lighter Bond in the tradition of Roger Moore—I didn’t feel that his delivery of the one-liners was that good. There again he didn’t have any great one-liners: in fact, I’m struggling to think of one!

Cork: For me, Brosnan’s performance is perfect for the film, but it is a tense performance. Brosnan seems so much more relaxed and at ease in Tomorrow Never Dies than he does in GoldenEye. Yet in GoldenEye, Brosnan’s tension works for the film. It is like there is the mission on screen and then there is this other mission: can Brosnan save Bond? And he does. You can tell he is an actor in awe of the part, an actor who all his adult life has been told he should play James Bond, and now here he is. And to his great credit, he pulls it off.

Desowitz: It was an auspicious start for Brosnan. His goal was to recapture the spirit of Connery and he carried himself off well with a good combination of intensity and playfulness. He demonstrated that there was still a place for Bond’s confidence and resourcefulness and the script didn’t make too many demands of him.

Funnell: For me, Pierce Brosnan’s Bond in GoldenEye embodies some of the best qualities from previous fan favorites Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Like Connery, he is incredibly handsome (especially in a tuxedo), alluring, and charismatic. And like Moore, he is both charming and witty. I personally prefer Bonds who are wittier as this increases my enjoyment of the film; the darker tones of the Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig films (with the exception of Casino Royale) render them more serious and less adventurous. But at the same time, Brosnan’s Bond is far more action-oriented than Connery’s or Moore’s and his character does treat (some) women in a more positive way.

O’Connell: Brosnan’s best Bond performance is in Tomorrow Never Dies. He is merely stretching his muscles in GoldenEye—including learning how to run, pause and twist. But Bond is not just about his physical dexterity. It is about how he enters a room, leaves a room, talks to the ladies and leaves during the night without warning. In GoldenEye—like all the best Bond debuts—Brosnan makes it look like we have missed two of his films already. There is a great momentum to how he plays those early scenes. Pierce is a great casting bequeath from Cubby Broccoli who thankfully got to see one his Bond hunches take on the baton with all his family at the helm. Brosnan is great in those now iconic scenes with M/Judi Dench. He also never once is out-acted by Dench. Not in any of his Bond films. And that is no mean feat. If anything, Brosnan knows how to pitch the tone and timbre of the role whilst others around him—Sean Bean especially—flounder a tiny bit amidst the Bond tick list ephemera. The classic teaser of Brosnan pausing and walking up to ask the audience if they “were expecting someone else?” was all the reassurances the world needed as a new Bond was on the horizon. It is testament too to how Cubby and Michael were right back in 1986, but the fates had other plans.

Pfeiffer: I thought Brosnan was the right actor at the right time for Bond. He was more serious than Roger Moore and had a lighter touch than Timothy Dalton. The producers have always had an uncanny knack of knowing what actor plays best in certain eras and Brosnan was indeed the best choice at the time, as evidenced by the box-office results. All of his films did spectacularly well. Even when the scripts were weak, Brosnan came out of the film looking good. It’s rather strange because nowadays, Bond fans want an entirely different character on screen—the ultra-realistic, less humorous 007 embodied by Daniel Craig. Doubtless, the pendulum will ultimately swing back again someday. However, during his tenure as Bond, Pierce was an enormous success—and he’s a good actor, to boot.

Scivally: When I first heard that Pierce Brosnan had been cast for the new Bond film, my reaction was severely negative. Although I thought he was good as the Soviet assassin in The Fourth Protocol, I felt he was nonetheless too lightweight for Bond (and I must admit, I never watched Remington Steele). Around that time, some critic—it may have been Gene Siskel or Rex Reed—was quoted as saying that Pierce Brosnan wasn’t a James Bond, but rather the kind of guy you’d cast in an Arrow shirt ad. I felt that about summed it up. Plus, I wanted to see Timothy Dalton get another shot at the role, since it seemed to me that it took Connery and Moore about three films before they really owned the part. But my trepidation about Brosnan lasted only about twenty minutes into watching GoldenEye. By that point, I was won over. When the film ended, I felt Brosnan’s was the best Bond since Connery, with just the right mix of charm and lethalness.

Coate: In what way was Sean Bean’s Alec Trevelyan/Janus a memorable villain?

Caplen: Sean Bean portrays a complex villain whose facial disfigurement is reminiscent of Ernst Stavro Blofeld in You Only Live Twice. Unlike Blofeld, Trevelyan’s background is less mysterious. A former Double-O agent himself, Trevelyan descends from Cossacks, a family history that remained hidden from MI6. The name of his crime syndicate, Janus, alludes to his betrayal of his adopted country and agenda to seek revenge against Her Majesty’s government, which he blames for his parents’ death…. Trevelyan seems, in some ways, like a reincarnation of Dr. No: an emotionless recluse, motivated to crime and global chaos by a personal vendetta. Trevelyan hides behind the shadows of Janus as he orchestrates an implausible scheme to rob the Bank of London. But Trevelyan seems to lack the omnipresence of Dr. No and other villains in the franchise, perhaps an implicit recognition that post-Cold War villainy is decentralized and operating among the shadows. He lacks the gravitas of other villains like Auric Goldfinger, Emilio Largo, Blofeld, and even Karl Stromberg.

Chapman: It was good to have a main villain who posed a real, plausible physical threat to Bond, rather than the supervillain/henchman division that we’d had so often in the past. Sean Bean was in great physical shape back then and you felt that he’s be a match for Bond. In that sense I was reminded of Robert Shaw’s Red Grant in From Russia with Love. The big fight between Bond and Trevelyan is also somewhat reminiscent of Russia…. I liked the historical background for Trevelyan—the idea that his parents had been betrayed by the British to the Soviets at the end of the Second World War so there was a personal as well as a political vendetta—and that the threat was directed at London.

Cork: First, let me say, I love Sean Bean. I think he’s a great actor who continues to do fantastic work. That said, the world can hate me, but I never bought into the idea of 006 as an intimidating villain. Trevelyan says, “I was always better.” Really? No other secret agent is anywhere close to Bond. That’s why we watch Bond films. Originally, Trevelyan was supposed to be Bond’s mentor, and the part was offered to Anthony Hopkins who turned it down. It was then decided to make the character Bond’s peer. Bean has the unenviable task of acting between Famke Janssen (who is just brilliant in the film) and Alan Cumming (who cannot be taken seriously). As a result, his reality-based character is diminished. Trevelyan is not larger than life, which, when one is in scenes with others who are, is a very tough place for an actor. Of course, he has one of the best Bond villain lines out there: “I might as well ask you if all those vodka martinis ever silence the screams of all the men you’ve killed? Or if you find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women for all the dead ones you failed to protect.” That was a Michael France line, and originally it was this somewhat catty exchange when Bond randomly met Trevelyan on the street in Russia, stunned to find him still alive. Everyone who read the line knew it was brilliant, and draft after draft, it stayed in the script until it found the place it deserved, the point where it looked like all was lost and the villain had Bond defeated. Bean delivers it perfectly. So, despite my quibbles, Bean does a great job with the role. Let me also offer up a huge amount of praise for Famke Janssen in GoldenEye. She is a major key to the success of that film. She serves up all that demented, oversized, sexualized evil that one wants in a Bond villain. She owns the part of Xenia.

Desowitz: Bean’s two-faced baddie wound up being one of the best in years and provided a sense of gravitas. He’s Bond’s mentor turned bad and revealed the dark side of spying and what happens when you don’t survive the Cold War. It was personal and a trial by fire for this Bond.

Funnell: Alec Trevelyan is such a memorable villain because he is the first to be a former 00 agent turned British traitor. Long before Raoul Silva embarked on his mission of revenge in Skyfall, Trevelyan had an axe to grind that led him to enact a plot designed to financially incapacitate, if not ruin, Britain. Importantly, Trevelyan is given a tragic backstory, which helps to humanize him as a character and enhance the torment experienced by Bond as he goes up against a surrogate brother. Sean Bean plays the part to perfection and offers a compelling villain.

O’Connell: Sean Bean is one of the miscasts of the series. Not so much his [younger] age. It is forever jarring to have a very known Northern actor trying to sound like an English spy marinated in that Eton-educated, bespoke world when all he clearly wants is a pint down the local with the lads. In a film series that strays from accents and colloquialisms, I would have had Bean keep his Yorkshire accent. It would have marked him out as different to Bond, which the script wants. I also find the performance sees Bean playing someone trying to play a Bond villain. There is no reality to it and—like a lot of the later Brosnan Bond movie dialogue—he speaks in knowing, moustache twirling italics. The villain’s backstory is interesting (the Lienz Cossacks and their betrayals and bungled repatriations) but it is ultimately a human cost and character damage the Craig films eventually did a lot better. Trevelyan also underlines how some of the Brosnan villains suffer for being most interesting in their past rather than the here and now of their fore-story. But the idea of a bad Double O agent is great. It sets up that MI6 world and its relevance to the new world order. I just wonder what the likes of Anthony Hopkins (one of the reported early casting hopes) would have done with it.

Pfeiffer: Sean Bean was well cast in the role of Trevelyan and he had very good on-screen chemistry with Brosnan. The problem from my point of view is that the Bond villains became less memorable. They lacked the grandiose egos and personalities of Goldfinger, Dr. No, Blofeld, Largo, etc. There seemed to be a conscious effort to make them more believable, but to me having a larger-than-life villain is an essential element of the Bond franchise. There have been some wonderful actors playing Bond baddies since GoldenEye, but few of the characters resonate the way the earlier films did. I would say Jonathan Pryce in Tomorrow Never Dies and certainly Javier Bardem in Skyfall came the closet to having the mojo of the classic villains. I think the producers are now able to get “A” list actors for the villains. In the past, there was still somewhat of a stigma about being in a Bond film, as though an actor could not be taken seriously. However, in recent years, they have had some great actors playing interesting characters. I am very enthused to see Christoph Waltz in SPECTRE. It’s a real casting coup. I think we might be going into another “Golden Age” of Bond films.

Scivally: Sean Bean, a contender for the 007 role, did a great job of playing a Judas character, one that our hero initially trusts but who turns out to be the baddie. He delivered the dialogue—and Trevelyan had some of the best villain’s lines in years—with aplomb and, in the final half of the film, a real sense of menace beneath the charming exterior. The flaw in his character is that he starts out as a fellow 00 agent, and once we figure out that he’s the bad guy, we don’t think he’ll pose any real threat to James Bond, because, hey, they make movies about the best British secret agent, not the second best, so we know 006 isn’t going to able to get the best of 007 long before we reach the inevitable climax. That said, the fight scene between Trevelyan and Bond almost rivals the one between Bond and Grant in From Russia with Love; it was fun to have a villain who was evenly matched with Bond from a physical standpoint, which is more than one can say about, oh, you know, Karl Stromberg.

Coate: In what way was Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco) a memorable Bond Girl?

Caplen: Natalya is an important addition to what I term the Post-Feminist Bond Woman Era in my book Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond. A computer programmer by profession, she appears self-sufficient, independent, and competent in her field. She’s a survivor, emerging from the rubble after General Ouromov and Xenia Onatopp destroy the Severnaya facility. She’s also resourceful, assisting James Bond in his mission by utilizing technological acumen that he lacks. Although Natalya succumbs to James Bond’s charm (perhaps to M’s chagrin), she ultimately challenges male chauvinism generally (“Boys with toys!”) and Bond’s lifestyle specifically (“You think I’m impressed? All of your guns, your killing, your death, for what? So you can be a hero?”). Her comments offer a refreshing sanity check, reinforcing earlier sarcasm from M and Miss Moneypenny, and revealing a shifting gender dynamic in the film.

Chapman: The publicity materials were telling us that this was a different kind of Bond girl: modern, independent, not easily going to fall for Bond’s charms, and taking a crucial role in the narrative rather than being just eye-candy. Well, they’ve been saying that ever since The Spy Who Loved Me! I don’t think she was a particularly memorable character or that the performance is anything special. And I wasn’t a fan of the “boys with toys” line, which a lot of others seemed to like.

Cork: Natalya’s amazingly beautiful, even in that pitiful outfit she’s stuck in for most of the film. Oh, that sounds harsh. I like Natalya as a character. I like her strength. I like that she’s a survivor. When she walks to Bond on the beach in that bikini, every man in the audience is cursing the clothes in the first two-thirds of the film. I also have my reservations about Natalya. She has some kind of crush on Boris? Or just a sisterly affection for him? Seriously? That one is tough for me. When we meet Boris, sure, he has skills writing code, but he’s an absurdly annoying character, completely charmless, misanthropic and misogynistic. Natalya’s emotional connection to him never plays well for me. Her introduction to Bond—screaming her head off—and her continual nagging at him for the scenes that follow do nothing to make me believe that she should be a part of Bond’s world, or that Bond wants to be part of hers. Further, she becomes a character reliant on the cinematic “modern action woman” shorthand when she unexpectedly takes Bond’s Walther, pops the magazine in and out and then cocks it. That business had gotten old and tired even before GoldenEye and in the past twenty years even more of a cliché (I’m looking at you, Madeleine Swann). But Scorupco has charm and holds a scene with her presence. Like Trevelyan, Natalya doesn’t bring that exotic intrigue I so enjoy in Bond women. That is not Scorupco’s fault. It is just one of my nit-picks with the story.

Desowitz: Simonova represents another reflection of post-Cold War survival. The computer programmer also has to overcome her disillusionment with the help of Bond and become more empowered.

Funnell: Natalya Simonova is notable for being one of the most active and integral Bond Girls in a film. She is unintentionally drawn into the conflict when she survives the attack on her Siberian outpost by Xenia Onatopp; she outsmarts the henchwoman by covering her tracks when she hides in the break room. Her intelligence in addition to her computer programming abilities render her a high value asset. More importantly, she is positioned as a partner (rather than sidekick) to Bond—she is the brains while he is the brawn—and only by working together can they bring down the Janus syndicate. And at times, she even takes the lead such as during the train sequence when she commands Bond to find them a way out while she narrows down the location of Trevelyan’s operation. In fact, she speaks up often and demands the best from Bond, pushing him to perform at his capacity. Overall, Simonova is a Bond Girl who plays a vital role in GoldenEye and this does not always happen in other films in the series.

O’Connell: In a Bond film that not only had to methodically lay out its 007 credentials and aim large spotlights at them, it was savvy to take away the vamp and bombast of the main female lead. That is partly because Xenia Onatopp has enough vamp and bombast for everyone, but it leaves Natalya as an almost anti-Bond girl. She is not helpless, but she is also not trying to be “the match for Bond” either. Scorupco was also a classic Bond casting find—unknown, beautiful and a real ambassador for a film which could have easily gone for a name to bolster its relaunch profile, but thankfully didn’t. Most importantly, Natalya is the audience’s way into the picture—and inadvertently a whole new Bond era. The first half of GoldenEye spends more time cutting back to her story and how it illuminates the plot for the audience than it does Bond himself.

Pfeiffer: Izabella Scorupco gave a fine performance in GoldenEye, but I don’t think the character was used very creatively. As I recall, the role was largely humorless and she was griping quite a bit to Bond about this and that. I know they were trying to bring a more realistic and feminist attitude to the traditional role of a “Bond Woman,” but I thought she was overshadowed by Famke Janssen, who had the flashier and more memorable role. I remember at the time griping that they didn’t even give Izabella much in the way of attractive outfits to wear. She seemed to be clad in a dowdy sweater throughout much of the film. Not her fault, mind you... but the “bad girl” tends to always be more memorable in a Bond film.

Scivally: In the classic Bond films, the “Bond women” are often “angels with one wing down,” women who have been, or are being, taken advantage of by unscrupulous men. Natalya Simonova was more in line with what the filmmakers began with Pam Bouvier in the previous film—smart, independent, and able to hold her own with Bond. What makes Natalya memorable is that, by the end of the second act, she’s able to penetrate his hard exterior and touch him on a human level, as we see in the beautifully photographed beach scene. By the final act, she’s transcended from being a Bond woman to becoming virtually a Bond in her own right, helping 007 infiltrate the control station, using guns, fighting, flying a helicopter... one almost expects her to reappear in a later film as 006, having taken over that now vacant position.

Coate: What is the legacy of GoldenEye?

Caplen: Licence to Kill marked the end of John Glen’s directorial tenure with the franchise. Its successor, GoldenEye, reaffirmed James Bond’s relevance after the fall of the Berlin Wall and did so while introducing a new actor as Agent 007. Pierce Brosnan responded with aplomb, revitalizing the series and redefining gender roles for 1990s audiences…. Outside of the film itself, GoldenEye became a significant edition within the gaming community. The game for the Nintendo 64 console was one of the original—and most celebrated—first-person shooter adventures that paved the way for current popular titles. The game received numerous accolades and effectively introduced James Bond to an even wider audience, expanding the James Bond footprint into interactive media.

Chapman: Put simply it’s the film that repositioned Bond at the forefront of popular action cinema. If GoldenEye had failed, there might have been one more but that would have been it. Instead it proved that Bond could compete in a crowded market for action adventure movies. In hindsight it’s a more traditional Bond than, say, Casino Royale, which Martin Campbell also directed. But without the success of the Brosnan Bonds, we might not ever have had the Daniel Craig Bonds…. It was also the first post-Cold War Bond movie—a motif brilliantly employed in Daniel Kleinman’s title sequence. The Bond movies had always responded to shifting geopolitical conditions, and GoldenEye demonstrated that the end of the Cold War didn’t have to mean the end of shifty heavily-accented Russian villains! General Ourumov’s ambition to be “Russia’s next iron man” might uncannily have anticipated the rise of one Vladimir Putin?

Cork: The legacy of GoldenEye is James Bond’s continued survival. My previous comments can’t properly reflect just how good the film is, how well the film plays, how spot-on the pacing is, how tight the dialogue is, or how well Bond is portrayed and defined in the film. Had GoldenEye failed, that would have been it for 007. The stakes with the film were incredibly high. A huge amount of credit needs to go to Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli. Martin Campbell’s tight direction and eye for spectacle lifts the film up. Each writer involved brought great additions to the movie. What exoticness is missing for me in the characters of Trevelyan and Natalya is right there in Peter Lamont’s production design, in Derek Meddings’ miniatures, in the amazing stunt work, and in the great supporting performances. Most of all, the film belongs to Pierce Brosnan. He not only had to carry the burden of filling some very large shoes, he had to convince the world that James Bond still mattered. He did that. All my nitpicks aside, from that first look around a corner in the pre-credit sequence to the unflustered flinch as a bullet ricochets next to his head near the climax, Brosnan is Bond.

Desowitz: The popularity of GoldenEye was a franchise game changer, returning a sense of equilibrium to Bond after the extremes of Moore and Dalton. It reaffirmed the strengths of the franchise were and what fans desired. It served as a template for Wilson and Broccoli and the success that it leveraged throughout the Brosnan era enabled them to take a chance with Daniel Craig and Casino Royale as an origin story.

Funnell: GoldenEye should be remembered as the film that resurrected the franchise after a six-year hiatus, adjusted the gender politics and geopolitics of the series, and revitalized James Bond and re-introduced the iconic hero to a new generation of filmgoers. The film also inspired the development of one of the best first-person shooter videogames, GoldenEye 007.

O’Connell: It drew in a massive new demographic of Bond fans who were just too young to catch the film’s predecessors at theaters. It forms an accomplished tick list of everything Bond onscreen is about and there is no better way to appeal to new fans and audiences than laying the DNA of 007 so bare and accessible as GoldenEye does. Also, Martin Campbell. In hindsight I find the direction of GoldenEye effective but maybe not as creatively fluid as what Mendes is now treating audiences to. Bond ’95 put Campbell on the 007 map which ultimately led to 2006’s glittering Casino Royale—which is a far better directed movie and of course the beginning of a second golden age of Bond. Just like The Spy Who Loved Me in 1977, GoldenEye was a vital Broccoli/Eon gambit that paid off. It proved massively successful for Eon Productions, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson and no doubt got the studios reassessing what they thought of the longevity of the Bond franchise after its six year sabbatical. It offers the first inkling of Barbara Broccoli’s long-term project to pepper the Bond films with top-end talent (Robbie Coltrane and of course Judi Dench). It is worth noting too that the massive impact and importance of the Nintendo 64 GoldenEye game should not be underestimated. Not only is it held up as one of the important notches in the history of gaming, it—like the film itself—enabled a massive swathe of new fans into the Bond world.

Pfeiffer: GoldenEye made Bond relevant for a new generation. It also spawned an amazingly successful computer game that did much to make Bond cool with younger fans. Until then, the demographics were not on the side of the franchise. The primary people going to see Bond were those of us aging baby boomers who grew up on the films of the 1960s. So you have to give credit to the producers for not only bringing Bond back in a big way but also making the franchise more popular than ever. That’s quite an achievement for a 53 year old.

Scivally: GoldenEye will be remembered as the first Pierce Brosnan Bond film, and the one that brought Bond squarely up-to-date with the modern era, repositioning a Cold War character in a post-Cold War world. It also signaled a willingness on the part of the studio(s) to invest more in the budget so that the film could provide bigger, more spectacular thrills. And, beginning with this film, Michael G. Wilson, who had scripted some of the earlier films, stepped back and brought on board younger writers to usher Bond into the new millennium. All the gambles paid off, and after a six year absence from movie screens, GoldenEye attracted a whole new audience of James Bond fans, ensuring that the series would continue into the 2000s (and by that, I don’t mean the year, but the number of films they’ll probably end up making before they run out of steam).

Coate: Thank you, everyone, for participating and for sharing your thoughts about GoldenEye on the occasion of its 20th anniversary.

“Unlike most of the Bond films, [A View to a Kill] lacks the sense of cleverness that is so instrumental to the success of 007. It is a film where everyone was working a bit too quickly, where the inherent tone of a Bond film was in short supply, the Bond film that feels the most like an expensive TV movie. It is the Bond film that should have gotten the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment.” — John Cork

The Digital Bits is pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the 30th anniversary of the release of A View to a Kill, the 14th (official) cinematic James Bond adventure and, most notably, the final to star Roger Moore as Agent 007. [Read on here...]

As with our previous 007 articles (available here and here and here), The Bits continues the series with this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of James Bond authorities who discuss the virtues and shortcomings of A View to a Kill and analyze whether or not the passage of time has been kind to the film. The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Okay, let’s (alphabetically) meet the participants…

Robert A. Caplen is the author of Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (Xlibris, 2010). An attorney based in Washington, DC, he practices antitrust and commercial litigation and has published numerous law review articles in leading academic journals. Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (which was quoted in Sir Roger Moore’s memoir, Bond on Bond) is his first book. He is working on a follow-up book and can be reached via Facebook (www.Facebook.com/bondgirlbook) and Twitter (@bondgirlbook).

John Cork is the author (with Bruce Scivally) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He also wrote (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek.He recently wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman); the film is available on iTunes, Google Play and other streaming platforms.

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012; www.jamesbondunmasked.com; and updated for Kindle which includes a chapter on Skyfall and exclusive interview with Sam Mendes). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies (www.billdesowitz.com), a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Andrew McNess is the author of A Close Look at ‘A View to a Kill’ (Xlibris, 2011; and updated in 2015). Based in Melbourne, Australia, Andrew works for a not-for-profit organization that supports bereaved families. He has a doctorate in sociology and has published scholarly work in subject areas such as youth bereavement, peer support and health promotion. He greatly enjoys combining his writing interests with a lifelong interest in film, and continues to do so via a site of Bond-related commentary, A View on Bond: www.aviewonbond.com.

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001), and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.”

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), and the forthcoming Dracula FAQ, due to be published in October. As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He is the Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course) and cueing up the soundtrack album to A View to a Kill, and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is A View to a Kill worthy of celebration on its 30th anniversary?

Robert A. Caplen:A View to a Kill is certainly an interesting film. It concludes the Sir Roger Moore era, which brought the franchise to new heights while at the same time deviated significantly from the James Bond that audiences discovered through Sir Sean Connery…. The film has been characterized as the worst James Bond mission, in part due to Moore’s age at the time. Indeed, Bond seems more like a mentor to young Stacey Sutton than her suitor. But AVTAK should not be dismissed so quickly. Moore’s long tenure as James Bond provided necessary stability to the franchise after Connery’s two departures; the perceived failure of George Lazenby as 007 in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service; and a decade of shifting attitudes about race, gender, and Cold War politics. The franchise simply would not be healthy today if AVTAK did not exist…. East-West relations certainly remain at odds in AVTAK, but the tone is quite different from Octopussy and its 1987 successor. Microchips and horse racing seem much less dire than the detonation of a nuclear bomb in West Berlin or combat against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Perhaps AVTAK sought to distract mid-1980s audiences from real-world uncertainties presented by the “evil empire” after the deaths of Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, and the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev…. In this regard, the gimmicks AVTAK employs are classic 1985. A year after the successful (but Soviet boycotted) 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, the fictitious Max Zorin dreams of crippling Silicon Valley from aboard a menacing blimp (of all things) that stalks the San Francisco skies. He fuses technology with the old sport of cheating, using microchips to operate a successful horse-racing doping scheme. If only Ben Johnson had been so clever at the 1988 Olympic games! And the usual spy-related gadgetry produced by Q Branch is replaced by a remote control robot dog that is more impressive for its superfluity than anything else. 1985 was apparently the year of the cinematic robot, as Rocky IV later confirmed.

John Cork: The further we get away from A View to a Kill, the less likely it seems that it will come back from the dead and haunt us…. A View to a Kill is a tough movie to love. It contains some of the worst performances in the Bond series. It has that 1980s look that may not ever come back into fashion, liberally peppered with lots of ungainly, unmotivated zoom shots. Unlike most of the Bond films, it lacks the sense of cleverness that is so instrumental to the success of 007…. It is a film where everyone was working a bit too quickly, where the inherent tone of a Bond film was in short supply, the Bond film that feels the most like an expensive TV movie. It is the Bond film that should have gotten the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment. It is generally the least-loved Bond film of the Eon series…. Yet, Bond fans should celebrate it. As much as anything, we should celebrate those who actually do love the film. Every Bond film has fans that became aware of 007 by sitting in a cinema and being swept away. I love those who came to Bond through A View to a Kill and staunchly defend it. I have my films that everyone else hates. Everyone needs those films. And the lovers of those films like A View to a Kill, they see the blood, sweat and tears that went into making it. They are the ones who are thrilled when Achille Aubergine creepily suggests he and Bond add the butterfly performer to their “collection.” Lord only knows what they found plastered up in the walls of that guy’s basement after his death. Those AVTAK-lovers can still look at it with the eyes of a wonder-struck kid. Every film needs those fans. They make everyone else step back and say, “Hold on, let me give this another viewing.”…. When you watch the film again, you can marvel at the early snowboarding stunts, the audacity of the reveal of the 007 logo as Duran Duran’s title song kicks in, the amazing BASE jump off the Eiffel Tower, the fantastic car stunts, the great dynamic between Moore and the always-lovely Patrick Macnee. You can hear the echoes of greatness in Barry’s score, enjoy Christopher Walken chewing up the scenery as Zorin, and appreciate the vamping of Grace Jones.

Bill Desowitz: It’s the last of the Roger Moore Bonds, who’s had the longest tenure. He was 57 and starting to show his age. So it made sense for Bond to struggle a bit but still manage to demonstrate skill, luck and assistance. And they made it very ‘80s hip by surrounding him with Christopher Walken, Grace Jones and Tanya Roberts. However, it was also nice to see Bond paired with Patrick Macnee of The Avengers.

Andrew McNess: In celebrating the 30th anniversary of A View to a Kill we are acknowledging the success and the legitimacy of the Roger Moore era. More specifically, we are celebrating a film that showcases a very interesting take on the super-villain template and features some of the series’ strongest stylistic debts to Alfred Hitchcock, particularly through the creative use of famous landmarks. Within its escapist canvas, the film has a genuine dramatic heft, and it features some of the most intriguingly subtle plays with the Bondian formula. The film travelled a rocky road both critically and financially—the zeitgeist, as such, was not particularly tolerant of James Bond during the Eighties, particular with the ascension of the blue-collar hero and the tendency of commentators to negatively correlate Moore’s aged visage with the series’ vitality—and yet it offers so many details and moments of interest. We are also celebrating a film that, in its darker passages, ushered in the tone of the Timothy Dalton years—although we didn’t know that one at the time.

Lee Pfeiffer: Any Bond film is worthy of an anniversary celebration. Even the weakest entries in the series—and A View to a Kill certainly qualifies for that label—are revered by Bond fans, who debate the merits, or lack thereof, for decades to come. Additionally, even the worst Bond films have elements to them that are highly enjoyable. View has that terrific title theme by Duran Duran and a fine score by John Barry. There are also the usual glamorous sets and Peter Lamont’s impressive production design. So sub-level 007 is generally a notch above most other action movies.

Bruce Scivally: I’m not sure that it is worthy of celebration. It is a milestone film in that it is Roger Moore’s last outing as 007, but it is such a weak entry that there’s simply not much to recommend it.

Coate: What was your reaction to the first time you saw A View to a Kill?

Caplen: I first watched A View to a Kill on VHS in the early 1990s and enjoyed the film despite emerging with a feeling many critics expressed: had the Bond franchise reached its nadir? But I am a product of the 1980s, so I have nostalgia for the era and for the film, even though it does not rank among my most favorite in the series.

Cork: I was one of those who bought tickets to the World Premiere at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco. I went with a platonic female friend who always said I needed to take her to a movie premiere. It was a great evening…. The audience was not filled with James Bond fans. Teenaged girls and their mothers packed the place because two of the members of Duran Duran were in attendance. A girl sitting next to us got into an ugly verbal fight with a girl behind us over something to do with the band. I never figured out what it was about, but all I could think was, “Never thought this would be how it would go down at a James Bond premiere.” The place went nuts when the Duran Duran members walked out on stage…. After that, there was applause when the title song came on and when Duran Duran’s credit came up. Beyond that, the theater was chillingly quiet for a movie premiere until the song was reprised at the end…. That night, the star was not Roger Moore or James Bond. The star was Duran Duran. I think the event was more akin to what it would have been like had they sold charity tickets to the premiere of a Twilight film. But it was a great night…. Reaction to the film: First, I had read the script in advance, so I knew the story. When the film didn’t open with the gun barrel, I was deeply disappointed. I hated seeing a legal disclaimer at the top of the movie. Like the vast majority of Bond fans, the pre-credit sequence had me hooked…until the cover version of California Girls started playing. For a second I wondered if someone had hit the wrong button in the projection booth. It was probably the single most disconcerting moment ever in a Bond film for me…. The film for me never really recovered from that moment. When a fan sees a new Bond film for the first time, you want to be swept away. As a fan, you are invested in the success. Eon and Roger Moore had beaten back Never Say Never Again, making the more successful (and in my opinion) better film with Octopussy. A View to a Kill was teed up to capitalize off of that success. The California Girls moment killed those hopes…. Trivia question for everyone: A View to a Kill’s title song hit number 1 for two weeks in the US in the summer of 1985. Although it is a sound-alike version in the film, did the Beach Boys’ California Girls out-perform or under perform on the Billboard US charts? Answer later!.... There were many highlights, but the film just never fully clicked for me. I now know so many who worked on the film, and each and every one is talented and highly skilled. There is so much great hard work that went into the film, but it never played. I really enjoy Octopussy and The Living Daylights, so this is no knock on John Glen. Sometimes it just works out that way.

Desowitz: I saw it at a press screening at the Academy in Beverly Hills. My reaction was that the franchise seemed tired and it was time for Moore to retire as 007. At the same time, Walken seemed under-utilized.

McNess: I first saw A View to a Kill at the local cinema of the Australian town I grew up in (Portland, Victoria). Not in 1985, mind you, but 1986—it took new releases an inordinately long time to reach us! I liked the film in spite of myself—Indiana Jones was the bee’s knees for me back then. But I also found A View to a Kill intriguing: it wasn’t as action-focused as many other Bonds, instead drawing its energy as much from a quiet sense of foreboding. I also felt that Christopher Walken and Grace Jones gave the film a distinct flavor. I remember the odd beauty of the airship floating over San Francisco Bay, with Zorin anticipating Bond’s demise. And I remember people muttering outside the theater afterward about how “horrible a man” Zorin was.

Pfeiffer: I first saw the film at an advanced critics screening in New York. My reaction was the same as when I saw both The Man with the Golden Gun and Moonraker: “The Bond series is over!” I loved the previous film, Octopussy, because I thought it had the right balance of thrills and humor. But the Moore films were highly erratic in terms of their tone. Most of the true believers in the franchise judged each of Moore’s entries by the amount of embarrassing slapstick humor the movies contained. Thus, Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy were generally regarded as not having gone “over the top,” although each of those movies do contain some cringe-inducing jokes. However, they did not overwhelm the overall experience. With A View to a Kill, however, the overall perception from fans was one of despair. The silly humor is strewn throughout the movie, culminating in that awful Keystone Cops-like fire truck chase. The film regains its mojo in the last section, but by then the damage is done. But every time I was ready to write the series off, the producers managed to rally and reinvent 007 as a relevant action hero.

Scivally: I saw A View to a Kill at the Cary Grant Theater at MGM in Culver City (now the Sony lot), at a press screening a few days, or maybe a week, before the film opened…. The first few minutes of AVTAK are great. The John Barry music is fantastic, Bond finding the dead agent in the snow is macabre, and the action that immediately follows is exciting and well-paced. And then, three and a half minutes in, we get a cover-band version of California Girls as Bond improvises a snowboard. That scene in itself isn’t so bad; try watching it with the sound off. It’s the music that kills it, instantly destroying the tension that’s built up for the sake of a cheap laugh. And that, in a nutshell, is my biggest beef with John Glen as a director. He’s a very nice man and a great raconteur, but he never understood the difference between “wit” and “vulgar humor.” Once the Beach Boys song starts, the rest of the pre-credits scene devolves into silliness, including the Union Jack on the inside of the iceberg-camouflaged submarine…. Then we’re into the title song by Duran Duran. The song’s lyrics don’t make a lick of sense, but the song itself is catchy and has the bombastic feel of a 007 theme. Maurice Binder’s title visuals, however, are among his worst. Personally, I don’t find women in garish blacklight paint pretending to ski terribly sexy or alluring…. It is fun to see Patrick Macnee in the film. For those like myself who grew up watching reruns of The Avengers on television, it was a treat to see John Steed on-screen with another 60s TV icon, The Saint. Moore and Macnee had appeared together before—Macnee was Dr. Watson to Moore’s Sherlock Holmes for the 1976 TV movie Sherlock Holmes in New York. On-screen, the two have an easy rapport, and superb comic timing, that is a joy to watch. It’s a pity that Macnee’s character, Tibbett, is killed off halfway through the film (though one has to admit he’s not much of a spy if he gets into his car without at least a glance at the tall woman hiding in the back seat)…. It has the weakest fight scene of the series, with Moore and Macnee taking on a guy who looks like Kenny Rogers and another Zorin thug in the secret lab beneath the stables. The fight is oddly choreographed and poorly edited; after Bond punches Kenny Rogers, it looks like Kenny lays himself down on the crate-banding treadmill. And the blue tracksuit Bond wears in the scene looks a size too big, unlike the nicely-tailored suit Moore wears in the previous scene…. The violence of the mine scene, with Zorin laughing gleefully as he machine-guns his men, was more barbaric than anything that had been seen in any previous Bond film. Previous 007s had traded in cartoon violence; this scene has a nastiness to it that is unsettling. In a sense, that scene marked the end of the “old Bond.” Just three films later, with GoldenEye, it would be Pierce Brosnan as 007 doing the machine-gunning of dozens at a time. I guess that’s progress.

Coate: Where do you think A View to a Kill ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Caplen: A View to a Kill should be judged within the Moore era, not against the films of any other actor portraying James Bond. It is simply impossible to give AVTAK the same weight as Goldfinger or Skyfall; the films’ objectives—and audience expectations—are completely different. As a Moore film, AVTAK is entertaining, but it ultimately lacks the excitement and urgency of The Spy Who Loved Me or Octopussy. In my view, the grand triumph of Bond’s rescue of Stacey Sutton and descent from the burning city hall building seems more climactic than Max Zorin’s defeat atop the Golden Gate Bridge. Like Zorin’s blimp, much of the film seems a bit deflated, but it remains a spy thriller complete with East-West tensions, a maniacal villain, an enigmatic henchwoman, and an innocent geologist who gets caught up in a scheme far more complex than a hostile corporate takeover of her family’s oil company. It has the classic elements of a Bond film.

Cork: Really? You are asking that about A View to a Kill? That’s cruel. Some film has to hold the distinction of sitting in last place for me. A View to a Kill holds that honor. Wow, I hate saying that.

Desowitz: I still believe it’s the weakest of the Moore Bonds, but I’ve come to appreciate his willingness to show his age more. It’s also fitting that old school chums Moore and Lois Maxwell bid goodbye to the franchise together. And for once it was nice seeing Bond sneak into a lady’s bed to surprise Jones’ May Day and mix pleasure and pain.

McNess: It is often ranked as one of the lesser Bond films, a position I simply cannot support. While I recognize the details that a number of critics and fans typically take issue with—Bond too far past the late thirties prime, Zorin too odd, a reduced action quota, henchwoman turns good, horse racing episode not sufficiently related to central conspiracy, and so on—I believe the film plays superbly. The inclination to break a genre film down to its constituent parts in order to grade it is understandable, but shouldn’t the grading relate more to how those elements interact? I rank A View to a Kill as one of the best.

Pfeiffer: I would rank A View to a Kill pretty much near the bottom of the Bond barrel. I think only The Man with the Golden Gun and Die Another Day are less rewarding experiences because they didn’t even have memorable title songs. Having said that, there are still plenty of things in any Bond movie that I like, this one included.

Scivally:A View to a Kill, to me, marks the nadir of the series. It has all the ingredients you expect of a Bond film—the gun barrel opening, John Barry score, great theme song, exciting action set pieces, exotic locations, a megalomaniacal villain, and a beautiful damsel-in-distress. Yet, unlike the quiche Bond prepares for Stacey, it’s all gooey and undercooked, using ingredients that are too far past their shelf life.

Coate: Did Roger Moore deliver a good performance in this, his final outing as Agent 007?

Caplen: Absolutely. Moore’s portrayal of Bond has been consistent throughout his tenure. Although Moore may have eclipsed himself as Bond by 1985, he remained Agent 007 until it was time for him to say never again.

Cork: I love Roger. He is a relaxed, confident actor. He can win you over with a glance. I think he did a fine job with a script that probably needed another few months of work. In A View to a Kill, Roger’s performance reminds me of that line in Elton John’s Candle in the Wind: “You had the grace to hold yourself while those around you crawled.” Roger was always a class act on screen, and his performance in A View to a Kill just confirmed his professionalism.

Desowitz: I like the way he acts like a protective father figure to Roberts. It’s lovely watching him cook quiche for dinner and fall asleep in a chair with a shotgun in his arms, watching over her like a gallant knight.

McNess: It’s not the performance that typifies his reign, but it’s a good one. One of earlier quips in the film—”There’s a fly in his soup”—is delivered by Moore at a lower pitch than we’re generally accustomed to, and it sets up the tone of his performance beautifully. The characteristic lightness of touch is, at times, discernibly strained; there are moments of grimness and fatalism threaded through his cool, collected seventh essay of the 007 character. And a quality I find especially engaging in Moore’s performances, particularly in the John Glen films, is how genuinely Moore communicates worry and concern. His Bond also seems quite repelled and unsettled by Zorin, which is an unexpected but welcome detail.

Pfeiffer: Roger Moore has the most self-deprecating sense of humor of any actor I’ve ever known. He doesn’t have a trace of ego. I was interviewing him once on stage at The Players club in New York and I asked him what his best performance was. He said, “None!” The audience lapped it up because it’s so refreshing to find someone who is a show business icon who isn’t full of self-importance. He elaborated by saying his limits are raising either one or both eyebrows to show emotion. I challenged him on that and he conceded he felt he gave one fine performance, in the little-seen 1970 thriller The Man Who Haunted Himself. Of course, that’s all nonsense. If Moore never gave a performance that cried out for an Oscar, he never gave a bad one, either. You know what you’re getting with Moore—and people like his on-screen persona. In the weakest of the Bond films, A View to a Kill included, Moore carries the show and often overrides the elements of the films that don’t work. In real life, he’s one of the funniest people you will ever meet, and that comes across on screen in all of his movies. In View, Moore seems to be having a good time, especially in scenes with his old pal Patrick Macnee. Moore is fun to watch even in a sub-par entry like this.

Scivally: I can’t really fault Roger Moore’s performance in A View to a Kill. As in all his latter Bond films, he seems to find a good balance between the light moments and the ones that require more gravitas. His appearance is another matter. Though it was made only two years after Octopussy, Moore looks a decade older. It is hard to reconcile the deep lines of his face with the athletic heroics of stunt doubles skiing off precipices, jumping atop Eifel Tower elevators, and fighting hand-to-hand atop the Golden Gate Bridge. Mind you, I say this realizing that Moore, in this film, is only four years older than I am presently, and he’s much more handsome at 57 than I am at 53, but he’s not playing Roger Moore. He’s playing James Bloody Bond, a character one usually pictures as being about 35, with the grace of a panther, not the measured moves of an elderly lion. This becomes particularly problematic in the scenes where Bond is trading sexual innuendo with Jenny Flex, making love to May Day, sharing a hot tub with Pola Ivanova, and, in the finale, showering with Stacey Sutton. Bond comes off not as a suave seducer, but as, at best, a dirty-old-man and, at worst, a sexual predator…. It was, I believe, one Bond too many for Moore; it would have been better had his last 007 film been Octopussy. Even he has admitted that by this point he was definitely too old for the role. But if I were offered $5 million plus 5% of the US profits (resulting in a final payday of $7.5 million), I wouldn’t turn the part down on principle, either.

Coate: In what way was Christopher Walken’s Max Zorin a memorable villain?

Caplen: Christopher Walken is a talented actor who imbued Zorin with the necessary maniacal and sinister mannerisms that make him a classic, deranged villain. Can another actor bring to life the personality of a botched Nazi medical experiment in the same way? Likely not…. Zorin, though, is very predictable and unremarkable. It is May Day who is the more memorable villain. We know little about her other than she serves Zorin both professionally and romantically. But is she a product of Zorin’s doping experimentation? Like other villains before her, May Day is impervious to Bond’s charm. But her epiphany occurs out of pure self-interest and self-preservation, which begs the question why she would be so devoted to Zorin in the first place. She thought he loved her. Despite her brawn, May Day is quite naïve and vulnerable.

Cork: Christopher Walken is one of the great American actors of our era. He has been in some of the best and worst films ever made, and in each one, he’s so much fun to watch. From his dark comic turn in Annie Hall, to his amazing performance in The Deer Hunter, to his great tap-dance striptease in Pennies from Heaven, to Pulp Fiction to Catch Me If You Can to Jersey Boys (a film I liked more than almost anyone else). And he’s gotta have more cowbell. Walken is always interesting. You can always see that hint of madness in his eyes…. Zorin himself is a great character, in his own way he reminds me of DuPont in Foxcatcher, a man slipping the bonds of sanity, but so rich no one will stop him. I think there was much more that could have been done with Zorin. Roger Moore hated the massacre in the mine sequence, this film’s version of Goldfinger’s gassing of the hoods, but when I see Walken play that moment, see him live out that bloodlust for the sake of bloodlust, I can see the film that might have been, I can see the shadow of the Joker from The Dark Knight.

Desowitz: The bleach blond hair was a nice throwback to Red Grant, and he was a petulant, spoiled brat. His Scarface-inspired machine gun rampage also took Bond villainy into the ‘80s.

McNess: Walken’s Zorin provides a memorable spin on the patented Bond super-villain. There’s the off-hand joviality; the world’s an amusing playground for Zorin. But he’s also dead-eyed—there’s a disconnect that is actually genuinely sinister. His plans don’t even seem informed by a set of ethics, however debased. It’s monopoly for the sheer hell of it. In terms of Bondian villains we have seen over the decades, he epitomizes the scarily entitled individualist—a prevalent beast in 1980s culture, with no signs of abating in intervening years.

Pfeiffer: Christopher Walken’s presence in the film was quite a coup for the producers. He had won the Oscar for The Deer Hunter a few years before so it gave some real credibility to the film to have an Oscar-winner on board. Of course, since then, numerous people who appeared in the series have won Oscars: Sean Connery, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Halle Berry. I might be missing some…oh, yes, John Barry, who technically “acts” in The Living Daylights. Back to Walken…he jumped at the chance because he grew up on Bond flicks and loves them. I thought he did a good job as Zorin. Unfortunately, the character wasn’t very memorable, but he has that wry wit and charm that all the great Bond villains must possess, and his dialogue with Moore is sharp and funny. I also love his last seconds on screen, when he’s about to plunge to his death from the Golden Gate Bridge. He appreciates the irony of having been bested and smiles a bit before falling. It may be the best moment in the film.

Scivally: Christopher Walken is a fine actor, with eccentric phrasing that makes the most banal lines interesting. And his villain, Max Zorin, is not your run-of-the-mill megalomaniac. We’re told he’s the result of Nazi experiments in steroids (along with May Day, we presume) conducted by Dr. Karl Mortner (Willoughby Gray, channeling his inner Josef Mengele). But he’s also part greedy Gordon Gekko, and part Lex Luthor. Like Gene Hackman’s Luthor in 1978’s Superman, Zorin plans to set off an explosion to cause an earthquake that will alter the California landscape. We’re also told Zorin is psychotic, and Walken makes us believe that with the massacre of his own men in the mine, and the nervous giggle he gives before dropping to his death from the Golden Gate Bridge. Unlike some of the other performers, Walken makes interesting choices and strikes all the right notes as Zorin.

Coate: In what way was Stacey Sutton (Tanya Roberts) a memorable Bond Girl?

Caplen: Stacey Sutton is, in many ways, another iteration of Jane Seymour’s Solitaire: an innocent woman who finds herself the unwitting participant in the villain’s scheme. But Stacey is neither a possession nor a pushover (thought she is gullible enough to believe Bond is reporter James Stock of the London Financial Times). She has a family legacy (and business) to protect, mounts a persistent legal battle against Zorin, and pursued a degree in geology so that she could take the helm of her family’s oil company. Stacey is career-driven and resolute: she refuses Zorin’s efforts to buy her silence and obtain dismissal of her lawsuit. Unlike Melina Havelock, revenge is not her motivation. She stands for principles. Unfortunately, Stacey has very little chemistry with Bond, leaving audiences with the impression that this career woman is cold, detached, and devoid of sexuality.

Cork: The absolute best moment in the film for Tanya Roberts is, for me, an ad-libbed reaction. When they were shooting Bond and Stacey arriving at the mine, they had her pull on miner’s overalls. Well, someone decided that Stacey would naturally be wearing over-sized men’s overalls. It is a natural assumption, but this is a Bond film. Stacey finding form-fitting miner’s overalls is no more absurd than Bond wearing a bone-dry white dinner jacket and bowtie beneath his waterproof suit in the opening of Goldfinger…. So the story goes that when presented with her costume, Roberts basically said, “you gotta be kidding me. No way am I going to be dressed like a sack of potatoes for a big hunk of this film.” I’m on Tanya’s side on this. She’s a Bond woman. She should not look like a moppet playing dress up. Of course, this happens the day they are shooting. Everything comes to a halt because Tanya does not want to wear the overalls. So they tailor up overalls for Tanya right there on location. Roger is not an actor who likes to wait around. He has little patience for actors who gum up the works. So they get the overalls snug in all the right places and come to shoot the moment when Bond walks out of the office with Tanya in her overalls. Cameras roll. Roger holds the door to the mining office open for her and in his most wicked tone simply says, “Pity you couldn’t find one that fits.” Tanya Roberts walks into the shot looking smoking hot, but she throws Roger this little glance that is so real and so honestly pissed off that my heart skips a beat every time I see it. That moment is like this little window into the Bond film I wanted to see…. Stacey is a piece of work. She was born rich, well-educated, has a good job, she’s beautiful, lives in a grand house, yet she’s single and fast going broke. Hands down, she wins my vote for “Bond woman most likely to end up as a crazy cat-lady.” She even has the only “get off my lawn” moment in a Bond film…. Somehow I feel like even after Zorin’s death, Stacey will lose it all, wandering the streets of San Francisco in faded glory like Cate Blanchett in Woody Allen’s Blue Jasmine. In films, there can be a perverse joy in seeing the pretty rich girl get screwed out of her unearned inheritance, which does not help us love Stacey…. But there is one more observation about Stacey. She has Blofeld’s cat. I was always entertained by the idea of a different version of the film where that was the tip-off that she was really the villain, that maybe Ernst Stavro was her grandfather who owned the oil company, that by acting dumb and obstinate, she had driven Zorin insane, that she was the one who wanted to destroy a city in some quest. Now, all this was just the fever dream of a Bond fan who thinks about these films way too much. I certainly never shared that thought with anyone at Eon. Then, lo and behold, we get The World Is Not Enough…about an oil heiress who, on a quest to get vengeance for something to do with her family’s oil fortune manipulates a disturbed man that is introduced as the villain into helping her attempt to destroy a city! Elektra King is the Stacey Sutton I always wanted!

Desowitz: The way she’s treated more paternally by Bond than a lover because there’s no sexual chemistry. It’s notable that they end the movie in a shower than in bed together.

McNess: With Zorin and Grace Jones’ May Day presenting such a vivid and offbeat portrayal of amorality, Stacey—in her genuineness and principled behavior—almost operates as a tonal balance. She’s obviously too timid and straightforwardly virtuous a character for some, but there is a strong element of decency and warmth in Tanya Robert’s performance that is welcome and memorable in the wider context of the film. The same goes for Patrick Macnee’s Tibbett in the film’s first half…. Stacey has often been admonished for failing to notice an airship sneaking up behind her, but this wasn’t an issue for me: deafened, dazed and confused from the previous blast, not to mention delighted and overcome by the sight of a man she thought surely dead, Stacey’s lapse certainly struck me as very reasonable! The action actually has a terrifically fun operatic quality: the lovers running towards each other while the airship steadily descends, with John Barry underscoring it all beautifully with a dramatic rendition of the romantic theme…. Interestingly, what also makes Stacey a memorable character is how Moore’s Bond responds to her. Moore is excellent; he brings a gently paternal quality to the fore (not an unwise decision given Moore’s advancing years) without ever slipping into the realm of patronizing. It’s a very fine line that Moore traverses with the greatest of ease. For instance, there’s a line where he’s lifting Stacey to safety—”Good girl, you’re nearly there”—a line that’s almost impossible to deliver without an air of condescension. But Moore never slips towards it.

Pfeiffer: I hate to be cruel, but Tanya Roberts is memorable only because she gave what is the worst performance of any Bond actress. It might have passed muster if she had been cast as an airhead, but a geologist??? I remember watching the advance screening and the audience would erupt in laughter every time she opened her mouth, especially when she’d cry out, “JAMES!” Cubby Broccoli’s usually infallible judgment in casting failed him this time. However, Tanya Roberts is a very nice person in real life. A few years after the film came out, I was on Geraldo Rivera with her and some of the other Bond girls. She was very sweet and likable.

Scivally: I really like Tanya Roberts. When we interviewed her for the Special Edition DVDs, she couldn’t have been nicer. That said, I think she gives a terrible performance in A View to a Kill. But I can’t put all the blame on her; in John Glen’s Bond films, you often have very accomplished actors giving the worst performances of their careers. Poor Tanya isn’t given much to work with. The first time we see her, she’s supposed to be despondent from selling out to Zorin. First impressions are important; it’s hard to bounce back from despondency—a note she’s still playing when we next see her—to sexiness, which is what we expect from a Bond woman. Once Bond shows up at her mansion, even he seems to realize that he’s too old, and she’s too emotionally fragile, for him to have a tryst with her. He sits up beside her bed, instead of climbing into it with her (admittedly, we have seen Bond in bed with May Day by this point, but in a lovemaking scene in which she immediately assumes the dominant position, effectively emasculating him). Stacey begins to cheer up by the film’s end, when she and Bond infiltrate Zorin’s mine, but then poor Ms. Roberts is saddled with some extraordinarily clunky exposition that there’s simply no good way to deliver, further undermining her performance. It’s an underwritten part to begin with, and with John Glen’s direction, or lack thereof, an under-acted one as well. Roberts deserved better.

Coate: Andrew, what was the objective with your book, A Close Look at ‘A View to a Kill’?

McNess: The principal objective was to focus on how the film plays with the series’ formulaic elements in a range of understated yet absorbing ways. Usually the variations on the formula in any given Bond film are clear-cut and apparent; A View to a Kill, by contrast, often achieves its effects in more elusive ways. Straight up, the film is blatantly formulaic—another madman intent on controlling a market—but in its finer details, it’s something else. I couldn’t always put my finger on the various appeals of A View to a Kill. This book constitutes the subsequent investigation! Implicitly, of course, the book also celebrates the cinematic James Bond formula—and implicit with that, its literary foundations.

Coate: What is the legacy of A View to a Kill?

Caplen: A View to a Kill certainly whets audiences’ appetites for the gravitas Timothy Dalton brought to the role of James Bond. But the film is more than a bridge between Octopussy and The Living Daylights—it offers respectful closure to the Moore chapter, which, we must remember, began with no less absurdity. (Moore’s first mission as James Bond involved the taking of a tarot card reader’s virginity in voodoo land.)

Cork: I think its greatest claim to fame is as being Roger Moore’s last turn as Bond and as the Bond film with one of the most successful title songs in the series. The BASE jump off the Eiffel Tower will always be iconic, as will the fight atop the Golden Gate Bridge…. There’s an interesting legacy to the title song. It marked the end of Duran Duran. They were the biggest group going. The song went number 1 in the US on July 13th, 1985, the same day Duran Duran performed it at Live Aid. Not that anyone cared, but Simon Le Bon hit a memorably bad note during the performance that haunted him for years. That concert would mark the last time the original members of the group would perform together for over fifteen years…. Trivia question answer: Considering the iconic nature of California Girls, Bond beat the Beach Boys (or Gidea Park, the band heard in the film). In 1965, the original California Girls only hit number 3 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart…. The film itself, mostly, I think, serves as a warning sign for the filmmakers. No one wants to make a Bond film less-loved than A View to a Kill. It is the Bond film that feels most complacent, most like no one really broke a sweat while making it. That’s completely untrue, of course. It was a very difficult film to make in many regards. Yet, I think most involved would look back on it and regard it as a project that never quite jelled. I think when anyone is working on a new Bond film and the creative juices are not flowing, the hour is late, the bones are tired, one of the reasons they keep going, pushing themselves to do better is because A View to a Kill is there to remind them that when it comes to Bond, only the extraordinary will do.

Desowitz: Again, the legacy is Moore’s final outing, full of grace if awkwardly looking out of place tangling with Walken and Jones.

McNess: It’s the ultimate Eighties rendering of the James Bond universe, what with its corporate super-villain, insanely strong henchwoman, Duran Duran song, tougher edge to the action, Cold War complexity, and so on. And yet its qualities are not trapped within the decade. Furthermore, A View to a Kill demonstrated that a foreboding, nihilistic edge could be threaded through a Bondian romp. It reinforced, also, how some especially creative casting of the villainy could supply a formula flick with an unexpectedly distinct flavor. Last but not least, the film reminds us—I think better than any other Bond film to date—that rewarding variations on the formula need not always be especially obvious.

Pfeiffer: If A View to a Kill has a legacy, it’s that it was Roger Moore’s final Bond film. By all accounts, he probably went one movie too far. I know Roger agrees with that. He felt the age difference between him and Roberts was too distracting. He had originally quit after Octopussy and negotiations between him and Broccoli, who he liked immensely, became strained. I think Roger would have preferred to have left well enough alone with Octopussy. Yet, A View to a Kill obviously has a major following even today. One of Cinema Retro’s writers, Hank Reineke, recently covered a rare big screen showing of the movie at the Nitehawk Cinema in Brooklyn. He was astonished that it had sold out quickly and that the audience was so appreciative of the movie. (Click here to read coverage.) So vintage Bond flicks seem to have a great shelf life—even the weakest ones.

Scivally: Seeing what happens to Tibbett and Chuck Lee, the lesson of A View to a Kill is: always look in the back seat before getting into your damn vehicle! Seriously, what is the film’s legacy? I think it will be remembered as the last Bond film for Roger Moore, Lois Maxwell and stuntman Bob Simmons, and for the Duran Duran title song, and little else.

Coate: Thank you, everyone, for participating and for sharing your thoughts about A View to a Kill on the occasion of its 30th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “GoldenEye” on its 20th Anniversary.

“[T]he lasting impact of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is that it showed that a James Bond film could be made without Sean Connery in the lead role. The producers maintained that audiences came to the films to see James Bond, not necessarily the actor playing him.” — Bruce Scivally

The Digital Bits is pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the 45th anniversary of the release of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, the sixth cinematic James Bond adventure and, most notably, the first not to star Sean Connery as Agent 007. [Read more here...]

As with our previous 007 articles (available here and here), The Bits celebrates the occasion with this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of James Bond authorities who discuss the virtues and shortcomings of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and why the passage of time has been particularly kind to this film more than any other in the long-running series. The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Okay, let’s (alphabetically) meet the participants….

Jon Burlingame is the author of The Music of James Bond (Oxford University Press, 2012; and recently issued in paperback with an updated Skyfall chapter). He also authored Sound and Vision: 60 Years of Motion Picture Soundtracks (Watson-Guptill, 2000) and TV’s Biggest Hits: The Story of Television Themes from Dragnet to Friends (Schirmer, 1996). He writes regularly for the entertainment-industry trade Variety and has also been published in The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He started writing about spy music for the 1970s fanzine File Forty and has since produced seven CDs of original music from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. for the Film Score Monthly label.

Robert A. Caplen is an attorney and the author of Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (Xlibris, 2010). Based in Washington, DC, he practices antitrust and commercial litigation and has published numerous law review articles in leading academic journals. Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (which was quoted in Sir Roger Moore’s memoir, Bond on Bond) is his first book. He is working on a follow-up book and can be reached via Facebook (www.Facebook.com/bondgirlbook) and Twitter (@bondgirlbook).

James Chapman is a Professor of Film Studies at the University of Leicester and is the author of Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films (Tauris, 2007). His other books include Inside the Tardis: The Worlds of Doctor Who—A Cultural History (Tauris, 2006), Saints and Avengers: British Adventure Series of the 1960s (Tauris, 2002), and (with Nicholas J. Cull) Projecting Empire: Imperialism and Popular Cinema (Tauris, 2009). Chapman is also a Council member of the International Association for Media and History and is Editor of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television.

John Cork is the author (with Bruce Scivally) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He also wrote (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek.He recently wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman); the film is now touring festivals.

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012; www.jamesbondunmasked.com; and updated for Kindle which includes a chapter on Skyfall and exclusive interview with Sam Mendes). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies (www.billdesowitz.com), a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Charles Helfenstein is the author of The Making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Spies, 2009) and The Making of The Living Daylights (Spies, 2012).

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001), and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.”

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), and the forthcoming Dracula FAQ. As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He teaches screenwriting, film production and cinema history and theory at The Illinois Institute of Art–Chicago and Columbia College.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest cueing up the On Her Majesty’s Secret Service soundtrack album and preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course), and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service worthy of celebration on its 45th anniversary?

Jon Burlingame:On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is without a doubt one of the all-time great Bond films. It’s been fashionable for a long time to complain about it because of George Lazenby’s one-shot take on 007, but that ignores the impressive accomplishments of the movie in every other respect, from script to direction to locations to music. It’s still a masterpiece.

Robert A. Caplen: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is worthy of praise for imbuing the series with a more humanistic approach, depicting the vulnerability of James Bond as he falls in love with and mourns the death of Tracy di Vicenzo. While the film has garnered significant criticism, it endures and remains entertaining. And, with SPECTRE on the horizon in 2015, there is a possibility, unless I read too much into the SPECTRE teaser art, that OHMSS could experience a renaissance.

James Chapman: All Bond movies are worth celebrating, though On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is a special case as it’s unique in the Bond series. I think for a long time it was the black sheep of the Bond family, the one film in the series that was supposedly a failure. Let’s put that one to bed straight away. OHMSSwas a failure only in so far as it was less successful at the box-office than the previous four Bond movies; it was still one of the biggest-grossing films of 1970 and was the top box-office attraction in Britain. And when I looked at the critical reception when I was researching my book on the Bond movies, I found that, while the reception was mixed, it was no more mixed than the response to Dr. No—in fact, some critics thought it was an improvement on Thunderballand You Only Live Twice.

This is a cliché, but it’s a film that improves every time I watch it. It’s the closest of all the films to the source, and, while I don’t think that fidelity to Fleming is necessary for a great Bond movie (viz. The Spy Who Loved Me or Skyfall), I think that a lot of the qualities I like in OHMSSare from the book. I’m glad they kept the ending, for example. In fact, I think it’s the downbeat ending that was probably responsible for the film’s lesser performance at the box-office than George Lazenby, who became something of a whipping boy after the event and carried the can for its supposed “failure.” It’s an old film industry adage that a happy ending doubles the box-office. As Molly Haskell said in her review of the film for Village Voice: “If you like your Bonds with a happy ending, don’t go.”

John Cork:Majesty’s holds an almost magical significance for many Bond fans, particularly the fans of my generation. The cinematic Bond has always tread this fine line between absurdist spectacle, nearly mythic storytelling and this sense that there is something a bit more human going on at the heart of Bond than meets the eye. We can love Bond battling Dr. No in a nuclear reactor as fuel rods are melting down, but that is balanced by the cold resignation of Bond shooting Professor Dent and listening to Honey describe murdering the man who raped her. But just four and a half years later with You Only Live Twice, the human element had all but evaporated. Did we really care if Aki is killed? Sure, YOLT is a fun film—great score, lovely locations—but it lacks any of the soul of literary 007. Majesty’s was a big, strange bet on Ian Fleming’s Bond, and in so many ways (and fans will hate that I say this) it failed. It almost killed the Bond franchise. Yet, I would argue it stands shoulder to shoulder with Goldfinger as the most influential Bond film in the series. How this happened is a remarkable story.

After OHMSS aired on ABC, fans were outraged at the way the film had been re-cut for the two-night run, with voice-over from an actor who was clearly not George Lazenby. Those who remembered the film well were very vocal in defending the movie. Richard Schenkman, president of the James Bond Fan Club in the US confronted Cubby Broccoli about it personally in 1977. Cubby was again questioned about it publically at a retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in 1979. There were soon two drumbeats that became constant in the fan community: one was about Kevin McClory’s attempt to remake Thunderball, and the other was about how OHMSS was the forgotten, underrated Bond film, and how the things that made it great were the very things missing in the Roger Moore Bond movies of the 70s.

After the success of Moonraker, Michael G. Wilson became a much more important creative partner in the series, and he tried to bring the Bond series back to Fleming and very much to setting the clock back to 1970. If you think of For Your Eyes Only almost as a sequel to OHMSS, you will get the idea. There’s Bond at Tracy’s grave. There’s Blofeld wearing the neck brace. The film is grounded in reality. Looking beyond that, we see the action scenes remind us of OHMSS—the skiing, the bobsled, the fight on a beach, the mountaintop lair. Before John Glen was tapped to direct the film, Eon reached out to Terence Young, who said no, and to Peter Hunt, the director of OHMSS. Hunt had other commitments and grave misgivings about going back to Bond at that point.

And after For Your Eyes Only, there is this continual battle over how much of the Fleming Bond is going to be present in the cinematic Bond, and, even more importantly, how that will be portrayed. The tone of Majesty’s is a strong and direct influence on Licence to Kill. It played a big role in the development of The World Is Not Enough. The shadow of Majesty’s permeates every bit of the Daniel Craig Bond films, and Eon’s buy-out of McClory’s rights ensures that the filmmakers can work with that part of Bond’s literary history again.

Bill Desowitz:On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is a landmark Bond movie in so many ways: the first without Sean Connery; the sole appearance by newbie actor George Lazenby; the first and only directorial effort of editor Peter Hunt; the most faithful Fleming adaptation; a return to the lean, mean espionage of From Russia with Love; the first movie centered on Bond and falling in love with Tracy, played engagingly by Diana Rigg (who left The Avengers); the best action in the snow in franchise history; the most haunting score by John Barry; and the most devastatingly tragic finale with the murder of Tracy by Blofeld and his assistant, Irma Bunt.

Charles Helfenstein: It is the crown jewel of the James Bond series. Somewhat ignored and dismissed after its initial release, the film has enjoyed a well-deserved renaissance. It is a masterpiece, and those who ignore it just because of George Lazenby are missing out on something incredibly special…Ian Fleming’s world perfectly captured on film.

Lee Pfeiffer: The stature of OHMSS among critics and the public has risen appreciably since the film was released in 1969. At the time, virtually any film that followed the Connery era would have been met with derision. The film was not judged fairly, though hardcore Bond fans seemed to like it. The fact that the film grossed far less than the Connery Bonds also added to the mistaken notion that it was a dud. Lazenby did himself no favors by announcing he was quitting the role after one film, so critics could be excused for predicting that the Bond era was over. Yet, it’s precisely because of the oddball, one-off nature of the film that it resonates as one of the best entries in the series. Most of the credit has to go to Peter Hunt, who had edited the early Bond films. This was his directorial debut and it must have been a very sobering challenge for him to undertake a big-budget film with such high expectations. Hunt was determined to revitalize the series by thinking outside of the box. He correctly presumed that the series could not go any further into gadgetry and spectacle, especially in the wake of You Only Live Twice, which is a marvelous film but one that finally soured Connery completely in regard to playing 007. His criticism was well-founded: Bond was becoming a less interesting character and simply a catalyst for big action sequences. Hunt once told me that he felt by this point, Bond was simply a guy who presses a few buttons to utilize gadgets to get out of a jam. Hunt wanted to go back to the essence of Fleming’s novels, and he succeeded admirably. OHMSS is a thinking man’s Bond flick in the way that From Russia with Love was. There was a lot of tension during the making of the film. Hunt and Lazenby barely spoke. The producers, Broccoli and Saltzman, not only had troubles between themselves, but they were understandably upset that their new investment—George Lazenby—would not be doing another film. (It’s the only movie where “James Bond 007” gets above-the-title billing instead of the lead actor. Why promote someone who was moving on from the role?) There was also controversy about the running time of the movie with some of the “suits” arguing that it needed to be cut. But Peter Hunt stood his ground. The film was still successful financially but not nearly as much as its predecessors. Yet, its qualities have only grown with time and people have taken a much more mature attitude evaluating its merits.

Bruce Scivally: Why is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service worthy of celebration? Because it is a James Bond film like no other. It has an emotional resonance lacking in the earlier films, innovative editing, less reliance on gadgetry than almost any other film in the series, top-flight action scenes, an epic scope, beautiful cinematography, and one of the best scores in the series. It’s the bridge between the “classic” Bond of Sean Connery and the lighter, breezier Bond films of the 1970s. It was an attempt to return Bond away from the cartoon extravagance of You Only Live Twice and back to the Bond of Ian Fleming. It has the best screenplay of the series. And the biggest reason it’s worth of celebrating: Diana Rigg.

Coate: When did you first see On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and what was your reaction?

Burlingame: OHMSS was the first Bond I actually saw in a movie theater during its initial run, just after Christmas 1969 in upstate New York. I was “wowed” and it hooked me not only on Ian Fleming’s hero but on all things Bond, from novels to films to (of course) soundtrack albums.

Caplen: I recall watching OHMSS for the first time as a teenager and thought it was unique among the Bond films. The Louis Armstrong-crooning love scenes and the concept of a brainwashing a group of women as Blofeld’s angels of death were striking. The humor peppered throughout the film contrasted the final scene, which I thought was jarring and unsettling. Ultimately, I think that George Lazenby’s 007, despite all the negative criticism, fits the part in OHMSS quite well, and I view the film as a perfect bridge as the franchise moved into the 1970s.

Chapman: It would have been the occasion of its first TV screening on ITV (around about 1979 or 1980?). I have to confess that at the time I was rather underwhelmed. I was disappointed that it wasn’t the same as Goldfinger or You Only Live Twice and that it didn’t have Sean Connery in it. I’ve changed my mind since!

Cork: I first saw OHMSS at the Martin Twin theaters in Montgomery, Alabama, on its original release. I was just barely eight years old, and frankly, I had few concrete memories. My favorite moment was the snow plow, of course. And in a brutally honest confession, I didn’t understand Tracy’s fate at the end until my grandfather explained it to me.

Folks talk about the “downer ending,” but this was the era of Bonnie and Clyde, Easy Rider, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Planet of the Apes, all huge hits, all with downer endings, and three of them involved key characters dying in a hail of bullets. Regardless, eight-year-old me thought Tracy just might have been taking a rest. I mean, that’s what James Bond was telling me.

Desowitz: I saw it first run at a new theater [in the San Fernando Valley region of Los Angeles] called the Valley Circle across from the Motion Picture Retirement Home. I saw it two weeks in a row because I enjoyed it so much. It had such rare emotional impact for a Bond movie. I missed Connery, but this was the most exciting and riveting for me.

Helfenstein: I first saw it on TV in the late 70s, and although it was a butchered, pan-and-scan version courtesy of ABC, Majesty’s is so brilliant that those presentation flaws didn’t matter—I was blown away. The hyper-kinetic fight scenes, Diana Rigg’s breath-taking beauty, the gorgeous cinematography, John Barry’s score, the final assault on Piz Gloria—it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Pfeiffer: I don’t know why, but men always seem to remember exactly where they saw virtually every movie they’ve ever experienced. I saw OHMSS at the State Theater in my home town of Jersey City, New Jersey. The fact that the studio didn’t have much confidence in it was illustrated by the fact that it was the first Bond movie in years to open with a second feature attached (Guns of the Magnificent Seven). Ordinarily, Bond films never played on double features because the theaters could make far more money by simply playing the latest 007 flick back-to-back. I recall being optimistic but wary. I was 13 years old and my mom and dad accompanied me. My mom was hooked on Connery and she hated the film. She thought Lazenby was a poor successor to him. She also said the film was far too loud and seemed endless.

Scivally: I first saw On Her Majesty’s Secret Service when it was broadcast on ABC-TV on February 16 and February 23, 1976. In that notorious broadcast, the film had been chopped in half to accommodate two 90-minute time slots over two evenings, and to pad it out to the requisite length, the ski chase scene was put at the beginning, with an actor who sounded nothing like George Lazenby doing a lame voice-over as 007. It then “flash-backed” to the actual beginning of the film...for a bit. Then it was the car rally scene. Then Bond’s meeting with Draco. In short, the re-edit bowdlerized the film, making it incomprehensible. After about half an hour of this travesty, I turned it off. When ABC ran the film again sometime later, I was a more dedicated James Bond fan, and determined that I would watch the film all the way to the end, no matter how horrible, so I could truthfully say I’d seen all the films in the series. This time, the network ran the film in a 3-hour slot (with commercials), and without any goofy re-editing. It was a revelation. By the time it was over, I was sure I’d seen one of the very best films of the series; it was as though the Connery films were the “Hollywood version” of the exploits of the “real” James Bond presented in Majesty’s.

Coate: Where do you think On Her Majesty’s Secret Service ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Burlingame: Within the top five, unquestionably. I’d place one or two of the Connery films ahead of it and maybe the Daniel Craig Casino Royale. But it’s near the top, for sure. One of the reasons it’s so great is John Barry’s extraordinary score. Barry knew going in that the music, as much as any element of OHMSS, would have to reinforce the idea that this new fellow was 007 just as much as his predecessor. So the score is strong and memorable at every turn: the stylish main theme, the beautiful love theme (We Have All the Time in the World, sung so memorably by Louis Armstrong), the cutting-edge use of the Moog synthesizer, and thrilling music for the action sequences, all contributing to one of the greatest Bond scores of all time.

Caplen: I struggle ranking the films as I enjoy them all for different reasons. For me, OHMSS deserves its own category because it has a different feel than the other films. Given my focus on the franchise’s portrayal of women, I cannot say that OHMSS departs in any meaningful way from the films immediately preceding and postdating it. As I have written, OHMSS perpetuates the Bond Girl archetype by introducing a harem theme and the easy manipulation of women for pecuniary or other gain.

Chapman: For me it’s in the top three along with From Russia with Loveand The Spy Who Loved Me. (My Bond tastes encompass both the traditional spy-type Bond pictures and the big spectacular action-adventure Bond pictures!)

Cork: This really depends. For me—and some folks will hate me for this—it personally ranks in the middle. There is so much I love about the film, but I think Michael Reed and Peter Hunt played with the look of the 60s Bond films a bit too much. I think it could be shorter. I wish some of the editing was bit less abstract. The scene where Draco talks about Tracy after kidnapping Bond seems to go on for weeks. Norman Wanstall’s sound editing is sorely missed, and the sub-standard sound effects and looping in places are a real distraction for me. Ultimately, the lack of on-screen chemistry between Tracy and Bond hobbles the film for me.

On the other hand, there is so much going for it, so much of the mood of Fleming’s writing, so much spectacle that is mind-blowingly wonderful. Barry’s score is among the best of his career. I think one of the things that I find frustrating about the film is just how close it came to being the movie that truly re-defined Bond for audiences when it came out. But it didn’t. It would take filmmakers who so loved Majesty’s to find a way to do that with Casino Royale and Skyfall.

Finally, in many ways, I can judge the film differently. Not by how successful it was at doing what it set out to do, but by what it aimed for, by travelling the path less taken, by aspiring to give Bond back his soul.

Desowitz: In the Top 10. For me it’s my personal favorite. It’s a meta-Bond; unappreciated in its day but beloved by many fans today. It has stood the test of time really well and served as the template for Casino Royale in many ways. Chris Nolan even paid homage to it in Inception.

Helfenstein: Artistically it is the best film in the series. It excels in four key areas. (1) The script. It is hands-down the most faithful adaptation of an Ian Fleming novel. (2) The visuals. Director Peter Hunt’s vision, cinematographer Michael Reed’s lighting and camera work, combined with the lush, dense sets created by production designer Syd Cain make a striking cinematic environment that simply hasn’t been topped since. To quote director Steven Soderbergh: “Shot to shot, this movie is beautiful in a way none of the other Bond films are—the anamorphic compositions are relentlessly arresting.” (3) The action. While Bond films are always on the cutting edge in the action department, stunt personnel that I’ve interviewed said OHMSS was about a decade ahead of its time with the fight scenes and stunts. (4) The love story. Hunt was astonishingly able to combine a technically brilliant action film with a heart-tugging, tragic love story.

Pfeiffer: I would rank the film alongside Goldfinger as my favorites of the series. It has aged very well, unlike some of the Bond flicks of the 1970s. It’s got a strong script and the type of exotic production values we’ve come to associate with the series. If I have any gripe about the films made since For Your Eyes Only, it’s that they lack the kind of spectacular endings that the Bond films were once known for. It seems like every film has Bond and the villain going mano-a-mano at the end. I’m second to none in my admiration for Daniel Craig and the great work he’s done in revitalizing the franchise. However, I would like to see something like the finale of OHMSS, with Bond leading an assault force against the bad guys.

Scivally: When I went to Los Angeles to go to USC, I would go to James Bond double- and triple-features at the “revival house” movie theaters, and it was there that I saw the film on the big screen, in wide-screen, sans commercials. After seeing all the other Bond films at the revival houses, I decided that the best of all of them was From Russia with Love, and the next best was On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, followed by Goldfinger. Those films remain my top three favorites. The thing I find most appealing about From Russia and Majesty’s is that both of those films present 007 as a character who must use his brains to get out of dangerous situations, rather than, say, pushing a button on his wristwatch. There’s a very good example in Majesty’s, where Bond is imprisoned in the wheelhouse of the cable car, and with no gadgets, and no winter gear, he rips the pockets out of his slacks to use as makeshift gloves. That shows Bond to be clever, to be a little smarter than the average bear. Pressing a button on a gadget to get out of a bad situation—heck, I could do that.

Coate: Charles, what was the objective with your On Her Majesty’s Secret Service making-of book?

Helfenstein: My primary goal was to document not only the technical details (exact dates and times, locations, finances, challenges overcome, equipment used, etc.) but to uncover the influences of the key personnel. Not just the “how” it was filmed, but “why” the creative decisions were made. I started at the beginning, with the source material for the novel, in author Ian Fleming’s archives. Then I plumbed the depths of screenwriter Richard Maibaum’s archives, for the fascinating five years of work he did on the screenplay, including alternate drafts when Connery was still attached to the project, as well as ones with strange tangents including plastic surgery, and ones where Bond befriends a chimpanzee!

Film fans aren’t just interested in what made it to the screen, they want to know about what didn’t, so not only did I uncover the unused material from the early drafts, I also acquired storyboards from scenes cut including a large chase sequence through London and in the postal subway system, as well as a strange scene with a train full of corpses.

A large number of the call sheets, production memos, correspondence and 600-plus photographs in the book came directly from the OHMSS production archive of director Peter Hunt, which I acquired after he passed away in 2002. All told, the book took me about 10 years to put together, and judging from the tremendous response of both James Bond fans and the OHMSS cast and crew, my efforts paid off.

Coate: Compare and contrast George Lazenby’s turn as Agent 007….

Burlingame: Coming after Connery’s five films, it was impossible for Lazenby to measure up. I sometimes wonder whether we would have thought him more “acceptable” had there not been a Connery before him. Every actor has made his own mark on 007, from the more lighthearted Moore to the more serious Dalton, the somewhere-in-between Brosnan and now the modern-day Craig. But Lazenby did a creditable job. Had he stayed around to do Diamonds Are Forever, would he have grown into the role and be less “dismissed” today? One wonders.

Caplen: George Lazenby was tasked with the unenviable role of replacing Sean Connery as James Bond. Of course, no one can truly replace an original, so Lazenby was severely handicapped. To add insult to injury, Lazenby never seemed to win the full support of the producers, who continued to search for a replacement even after he was cast. Film reviews were particularly unforgiving. I recall one likened Lazenby to exuding the expressiveness of an Easter Island statue. Each time I watch the film, though, I am reminded that ”the other fellow” arguably would not have been able to deliver the James Bond required for OHMSS. It’s difficult to analyze Lazenby in the one-film vacuum, but I find that his portrayal of 007 has an energy and pace that is missing from Connery’s return in Diamonds Are Forever.

Chapman: Lazenby gets better in my eyes every time I watch the film. First—he looks good and moves well, nearly as well as Connery and Craig. Second—he’s superb in the action scenes. I think that of all the Bonds, Lazenby was the best at staging the fisticuffs. And the action scenes in OHMSSare some of the best in the whole series. And third—he proves himself a perfectly competent actor. Granted, he doesn’t have Connery’s confidence, and there are one or two scenes where he doesn’t get it right, notably the meeting with Draco. But I think he nails the final scene pretty well. In a sense, the fact that Lazenby wasn’t an experienced actor works in the film’s favor. His Bond reveals a degree of vulnerability, that’s there in the novel but not in the other films, at least until Casino Royale. For me Lazenby’s best scene is at the ice rink where he’s being hunted by Blofeld’s men after the ski chase. He looks frightened—note his reaction when he knocks into the person in the giant bear costume. This is psychologically plausible: he’s just skied down the mountain and fought off the two heavies in the bell-room so he must be exhausted. In the book Fleming writes that Bond was at the end of his tether and there wasn’t any stuffing left in him for another fight. The scene in the film has the same feeling.

Again, when I read the contemporary reviews, I found that the response to Lazenby was mixed. About half the reviews I read compared him unfavorably with Connery, but the other half thought he brought a freshness and new vitality to a series that some thought was starting to become stale after five movies. And, to be fair, the critical response to Connery in Dr. Nowas also mixed—some critics thought he was too thuggish and brutal (compare to the reaction to Daniel Craig), while others thought he fitted the role like a Savile Row suit. Connery’s performance in Dr. Nois edgy: he really came into his own in From Russia with Love and Goldfinger. I do think that he was sleep-walking through the part by the time of Thunderballand You Only Live Twice, and in that sense it was time for a change.

Cork: It is almost unfair to talk about Lazenby. He is so honest when he talks about his own turn in the role. There is that great Sondre Lerche song, Like Lazenby, which was inspired by Lazenby’s interviews on the special features I helped produce for the DVD / Blu-ray releases of the film. The opening line is, “It’s a travesty, where do I begin…” That says a lot. George Lazenby is a fantastic guy. I’ve been fortunate enough to spend a bit of time with him, and had lunch with him earlier this year. He’s a great person, owns the room when he enters. But Bond was not kind to him. Peter Hunt believed he could edit a great performance out of him. Harry Saltzman advised him to act like a star and let no one push him around. And the press was brutal to him long before the film came out. It was a very harsh spotlight. For audiences, there was a real problem with what happened with Lazenby. For a significant portion of the film, he is impersonating someone else, a reasonably openly gay man. That was a tough burden for your typical James Bond audiences to stay within 1969/70. It wasn’t that they were offended, but one of the great appeals of Bond was his overt heterosexuality. But even worse, Lazenby is dubbed during this section of the film, robbing audiences of a key part of his performance. But, ultimately, he needed a stronger director, one that really knew how to draw a performance out of an actor rather than one who believed he could edit that performance into being. The result are some key scenes where Lazenby looks slightly lost. He is too often looking around like, “What the hell is going on?” There is a YouTube video intercutting the Bond casino scenes to make it appear that all the Bonds are playing against one another. In it, you can see how lost Lazenby looks compared to the others. It is a director’s job to make sure that Bond’s inner confidence can be seen throughout. I was friends with Peter Hunt. I think in so many ways he was vital to the success of Bond, a brilliant editor, but not an actor’s director. He did Lazenby no favors by under-directing him.

Desowitz: By all logic, Lazenby should’ve been a total disaster. And yet he was wonderful. He was handsome and had raw power and handled the action well. He was too young for this movie and had never acted before and it showed dramatically. Yet he was like a cipher without any previous baggage and I accepted him from the outset. (I think the opening line about “This never happened to the other fella” was a great icebreaker.) He was physically capable and unafraid of being vulnerable. We believed he was devastated at the end. He was a new kind of Bond, and it’s a shame he couldn’t be even more of himself instead of being directed in the mold of Connery.

Helfenstein: His massive physicality is evident from the pre-credits sequence onwards. The viewer has no trouble believing that this man is paid to kill people. Lazenby is without a doubt the Bond with the greatest amount of swagger. Those are his two greatest strengths. He’s certainly believable in the love scenes. Where he falls flat is the expository dialog scenes, especially the ones as Sir Hilary Bray, where he was dubbed. Those were the first scenes shot, and rather than bog down with getting the accent right, Hunt built Lazenby’s confidence by accepting takes he knew he would fix later in post-production. I think Lazenby’s overall confidence and happiness work very well in the film, and that positive outlook makes the gut-punch ending that much more powerful. Is George Lazenby the greatest “Actor” with a capital A to ever play James Bond? Of course not. But is he absolutely perfect for the part in OHMSS? Indubitably!

Pfeiffer: Lazenby was wise not to take the obvious route by trying to blatantly imitate Connery. Whether you like his interpretation of Bond or not, he did play the role in his own unique style and brought his own unique qualities to the role.

Scivally: George Lazenby is the weakest link in the cast of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. He lacks the sheer animal charisma and seductive voice of Sean Connery, but he has a great physique, is classically handsome, and performs most of his scenes with assuredness; his initial encounter with Marc-Ange Draco (Gabrielle Ferzetti) is his least accomplished bit, but he’s quite good in his scenes with Telly Savalas’s Blofeld, and shows real tenderness and sincerity in his scenes with Diana Rigg. He manages to invest Bond with an air of vulnerability missing in Sean Connery’s portrayal, and his worst moments are no worse than some of the leaden scenes played by Connery in You Only Live Twice. By the end of the film, when he seems more polished, it’s easy to buy him as James Bond. It has always seemed to me that with every actor who played the role, it takes three films for them to fully grow into it. I think it’s a shame that Lazenby didn’t get three chances to perfect his Bond persona. It would have been interesting to see him in Diamonds Are Forever and Live and Let Die.

Coate: In what way was Telly Savalas’s Blofeld a memorable villain?

Burlingame: Savalas might just be the best of the Blofelds. (It’s either him or Pleasence.) He’s not at all to be taken lightly, and he and Ilse Steppat as Irma Bunt make a formidable duo. He was so good that I had a lot of trouble thinking of him as a good guy when he took the Kojak role a few years later.

Caplen: The Blofeld we see in OHMSS is devious, maniacal, and cunning. But he is also somewhat more plausible than his prior iteration on You Only Live Twice. His facial scar replaced with no earlobes, the OHMSS Blofeld is a character that is more amenable to anonymity and disappearing without much fanfare. He can also be taken seriously, which cannot describe his campy successor in Diamonds Are Forever. Casting Telly Savalas (and Diana Rigg) around newcomer George Lazenby undoubtedly strengthened the film’s acting credentials.

Chapman: “Okay, we’ll head them off at the precipice!” The first time I saw the film, I was surprised to see Blofeld taking such an active role in the ski chase, as in the other films he’s presented as a hands-off supremo who leaves the physical work to his henchmen. But in YOLT(novel) he has a sword fight with Bond. So in that sense Savalas’s more active Blofeld is consistent with the books. I like it when the villain represents a physical threat to Bond regardless of whether he has a big henchman, so for that reason I prefer Savalas to the other Blofelds. Donald Pleasence with his scarred eye looks great in YOLT but his stature and delivery are nothing like the silhouetted Blofeld we’ve seen in previous films. And while I think Charles Gray is a marvelous actor, the less said about his Noel Coward turn as Blofeld in DAF the better.

Cork: Savalas was this great figure. I encountered him twice, and each time he had that same easy Greek smile that confounded you as to whether he was about to invite you to have dinner or simply slice off your head and show it to his friends. That is a great quality, and Savalas was a very skilled actor. Savalas dominates virtually every scene he’s in, but I do wonder what his performance could have been with just a bit more direction. During the ski chase and the final chase, where so much could have been done with his close-ups and his lines, so little is. In particular, I think of his reaction shot to Piz Gloria blowing up or him dropping the grenade in the bobsled or the shot of him driving at the very end of the film. He seems weak. Those are moments where a director and actor can lift something up, infuse a standard reaction with something that brings the character into focus. Think of Goldfinger’s little glance around when he’s briefly in the vault in Fort Knox. You just know this guy wants to have sex with that gold. Or think of Rosa Klebb’s reactions in From Russia with Love. Savalas is also saddled with the scene where he’s smitten with Tracy and trying to convince her to become his mistress, and that scene works for her, but not for him. He seems smarmy, clownish and awkward. Again, a strong director working with an actor of his caliber could have made that scene work, built up a real dangerous sense of sexual tension, and had the audience in the palm of their hand.

Yet, all my nitpicking aside, Savalas is always fun to watch, and one of the things he does best is chew up the scenery. He knows how to speak with this marvelous imperious tone. But those who know his body of work also know what he was capable of doing.

Desowitz: Savalas, like Lazenby, was miscast on the surface but was the best Blofeld: urbane, physically fit, witty, serious, pretentious—not at all like the thugs he usually played. In fact, The Assassination Bureau (which co-starred both Rigg and Savalas) was like a warm up for him. You almost felt sorry for him when he witnesses Piz Gloria going to pieces at the end. The bobsled climax was thrilling too.

Helfenstein: When Salavas was first interviewed in 1968 about what sets Blofeld apart from other Bond villains, he answered “Flair,” and I think that answer can apply to Savalas himself. While some people complain that Savalas seems a bit thuggish to be a criminal mastermind, I think he fits the part like a glove. Hunt did not want to re-hire the previous Blofeld, Donald Pleasance, because he was simply too slight, and he “waddled rather than walked.” He would not have worked with such a physical movie like OHMSS. Savalas has a commanding presence, an authoritarian voice, and he’s quite believable as the head of SPECTRE. You can picture him working his way up the ladder, taking out rivals with his bare hands if need be. My favorite Savalas moment is the demented cackle he makes after his grenade explodes—sending Bond hurdling out of the bobsleigh. You can tell this guy enjoys being evil!

Pfeiffer: There are plenty of fans who think that Savalas was poorly cast as Blofeld. It’s true that Savalas was primarily known for playing earthy tough guys and had recently come off playing two such characters in The Dirty Dozen and The Scalphunters. The main complaint against him is that he was out of place playing an aristocratic villain and intellectual. There is some validity in this. He lacks the sophistication that someone like George Sanders would have brought to the role, and certainly Donald Pleasence cast a larger shadow as Blofeld, bringing nuance and mystery to the character. However, there is no way Pleasence could have played Blofeld in OHMSS, given the requirements of the script which mandated that this time around, Blofeld had to pose a physical challenge to Bond. It wouldn’t have thrilled audiences very much to see George Lazenby tossing around a slightly built, much older man like Pleasence. So count me among those who feel that Savalas acquitted himself quite well in the role, not only in terms of the physical demands, but also in terms of interpreting the character. What he may have lacked in sophistication, he made up for in the area of wit and humor.

Scivally: Telly Savalas is a menacing presence, and is believable as an athletic, physically capable adversary of Bond. One can’t easily imagine Donald Pleasance or Charles Gray in the ski chase. But while Pleasance gave Blofeld a slightly Germanic accent, Savalas plays it with his own Garden City, New York, American accent, making his more of a Bronx Blofeld. With Savalas, the polished veneer of civility really does seem like just a veneer—you sense that he’s a tough SOB underneath, whom you don’t want to cross. Charles Gray, by comparison, is so charming and civilized that it’s difficult to believe he would do the nasty things Blofeld is supposed to do. And while Pleasance has an oily, evil presence, he lacked the physical stature to make a credible physical adversary to Bond; he would never have seemed like a threat in the hand-to-hand fighting of the bobsled scene. With Savalas, you can believe that he might just get the best of 007.

Coate: In what way was Tracy (Diana Rigg) a memorable Bond Girl?

Burlingame: Really, do you even have to ask? Diana Rigg is one of the great actresses of our time, from Shakespeare to The Avengers, and coming off the role of Emma Peel, she was simply ideal casting. If there is a problem with Lazenby in the role, it’s simply the fact that he just couldn’t match Rigg as Tracy and they had very little chemistry together. It was such a great part—the woman who finally won James Bond’s heart—and she still melts mine. I think Diana Rigg may just be the greatest “Bond girl” of all.

Caplen: I discuss Tracy di Vicenzo at length in Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond. She is a significant female character in the franchise. Flawed, rebellious, and “untamed,” she must be repositioned by James Bond, the man who saves her from suicide at the beginning of the film but cannot shield her from Blofeld’s bullets at its conclusion. OHMSS shows the audience, through Tracy, what befalls a woman who challenges the role reserved for her in a patriarchal society.

Chapman: “Her price is far above rubies—or even your million dollars.” I’m biased because I’ve had a major crush on Diana Rigg ever since I first saw The Avengers! But I think she was the first of the Bond “girls” with any real depth of characterization—partly due to the writing and partly to the performance. Most of the early Bond women are beautiful to look at but at best are two-dimensional characters. Even Pussy Galore isn’t all that well fleshed out, though Honor Blackman is superb in the role. But Pussy, having been set up as an independent woman resistant to Bond’s charms, succumbs pretty easily in the end. Tracy is different. I think Diana Rigg captures both the vulnerability and the bravado of the character. And for once the woman is seen acting independently—she saves Bond when she turns up at the ice rink. In fact I’d say she’s my favorite heroine in the whole series. A shame that she had to be killed off at the end, but there again, that’s what makes this film distinctive and provides a degree of emotional investment that we don’t really get in the other films.

Cork: Diana Rigg is beyond a doubt the greatest thing in the film. She owns the screen. The character of Tracy is, internally, the most complex Bond woman. Sure, Vesper is tormented, but more because of external factors. Tracy is a troubled mess who doesn’t know if life is worth living, and it is the loss of her life that becomes one of the most powerful moments in any Bond film. Bond saves her as a stranger, and loses her as the love of his life. I get great joy from the action and many other things about OHMSS, but it is Tracy’s story and Rigg’s performance that makes the film one I can watch over and over.

Desowitz: Tracy is the best Bond Girl because she’s the first that won his heart. Rigg evoked Emma Peel with her spunk and sense of fun and adventure. Tracy is such a sad soul who has nothing to live for in the beginning but is given a new lease on life after the wedding, only to have it taken away from her. She could hold her own in a fight and could match wits with 007. The proposal scene is touching and romantic, the car rally is good fun, and the closing sight of her corpse is unforgettable.

Helfenstein: The typical method of casting Bond girls involved finding unknowns, except for Goldfinger, and they decided to follow that alternate recipe exactly by hiring another Avengers veteran, and thank God they did. The role required a real range of emotions, not just window dressing. Rigg plays Tracy with an incredible mix of sophistication and elegance, emotional vulnerability, and independent spirit. Her physical abilities, honed by her years on The Avengers, caused the filmmakers to rewrite the climax so she would have a fight scene to show off her talents. It is difficult to imagine any Bond girl of any era coming close to the full package Rigg brought to OHMSS. There is only one woman on the planet that can get 007 to give up his bachelorhood, and her name is Diana Rigg.

Pfeiffer: Until Diana Rigg appeared in OHMSS, most Bond women were (unjustifiably) written off as beautiful airheads. That really isn’t true. Most of the airhead characters came after this film (those played by Jill St. John, Britt Ekland and Tanya Roberts being the most egregious examples). It can be said that Bond women represented liberated female characters. Sure, they may have swooned in Bond’s presence, but they were generally courageous, self-reliant women who were getting along just fine before Bond entered their lives. With the character of Tracy in OHMSS, there was much more of an overt attempt to present her as a modern, liberated woman. This was, after all, a film made in the burgeoning days of the Women’s Lib movement. Tracy was also Bond’s intellectual equal and was presented as a daring risk-taker. It didn’t hurt that she was portrayed by an actress of exceptional skill. This seemed to be the first time critics gave some grudging respect to a leading female character in a Bond film.

Scivally: Long before I saw On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, I was in love with Diana Rigg. She was my idea of the ideal woman—beautiful, brainy and able to kick butt. I was a big fan of The Avengers, and wanted to grow up to be Mr. Steed so I could run around with Emma Peel. So, I was already pre-disposed to like Rigg before I saw the film. But her portrayal of Tracy di Vicenzo differs from her role of Mrs. Peel. Tracy has an inner melancholy that, when we first see her, is driving her to attempt suicide, and afterwards seems to be just under the surface. When she helps Bond escape from Mürren, the excitement of the situation—and his proposal—lifts her spirits and brings her to life; for the first time in her life, she’s really happy, and that makes her untimely death all the more tragic. Rigg, being an immensely skilled actress, makes us feel for Tracy from the first frame she’s in to the last.

Coate: What is the legacy of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service?

Burlingame: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service demonstrated (conclusively, even at the time) that a tight, Fleming-based script; direction by the guy who had so brilliantly edited the previous five films; a genuinely inspired music score; great actors including Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas; superb production design; well-chosen locations and eye-popping action sequences; could ensure that a top-notch Bond film was possible even without Sean Connery. To this day OHMSS ranks as one of the finest 007 films ever made.

Caplen: OHMSS serves as proof that the character of James Bond transcends the actor cast for the role. Sean Connery’s departure ultimately had little impact on the franchise and paved the way for continuity with different actors portraying our favorite protagonist. Whatever your opinion of George Lazenby may be, he served a greater function than merely portraying James Bond in one film, and that aspect is often overlooked.

Chapman: I think there are both short-term and longer-term legacies. Its perceived “failure” at the box-office meant that the producers changed direction for the next film. So in the short term the legacy of On Her Majesty’s Secret Servicewas Diamonds Are Forever: Connery back, gadgets back, more or less a remake of Goldfinger but even more excessive in its bizarre situations and visuals. I know that some fans maintain that the Roger Moore films ruined the Bond series. I don’t. And the style of the 1970s Bonds was set by Diamonds, which has more silliness and more camp than any of Roger’s films. Blofeld was never meant to be a realistic character, but the moment he appeared in drag ruined him as a plausible villain for me. Diamonds was back up at the box-office, though, suggesting that’s the style that audiences at the time preferred. But it meant the Bond movies steered away from any attempt at psychological or emotional realism, and instead embraced spectacle, visual excess and campy humor.

In the longer term, though, I think the influence of OHMSScan be seen in the modern Bond movies. With Casino Royale we had a vulnerable Bond again, grieving over the death of a woman he has fallen in love with. And with Daniel Craig, the Bond films have again explored Bond’s sense of duty and loyalty, most obviously in Skyfall, but it’s also there in the other two. The action set pieces in the recent films are also influenced by Majesty’s, I think: big and spectacular—and in the case of the pre-title sequence of Skyfallextended like the ski chase in OHMSS—but not silly or entirely impossible. I’ve been used to saying in recent times that I thought, in hindsight, Licence to Kill was the first Daniel Craig Bond movie—albeit without Daniel Craig. But perhaps, I might suggest, OHMSS was the first Daniel Craig Bond movie?

Cork: I answered this one way back in the first question. I’ll answer a different way now. I’ve talked about how Majesty’s influenced Bond films that echo its tone and style, but there is a counterpoint to that. When Majesty’s came out and did not become a breakout success on the scale UA hoped for, it changed the Bond films. UA made it very clear to Cubby and Harry that there were no more blank checks, that the studio would be heavily involved in the future Bonds, and David Picker personally became a major influence on Diamonds Are Forever. He got Connery back. He selected Tom Mankiewicz to do re-writes on the script. He almost succeeded in getting the film made in Hollywood where studio supervision would have been even more apparent. Most of all, Picker declared that what he wanted, and what he believed audiences wanted, was more Goldfinger and more humor. Until the end of the Brosnan era (with the exception of Licence to Kill), we are looking at a tone for Bond that is very heavily influenced by Picker’s creative input on Diamonds Are Forever. That’s an unexpected legacy, but it comes straight from OHMSS’s lack of box-office success.

Another legacy has to do with the way the producers and studios approached the job of directing Bond. I can’t speak for them, but we can look at their actions. Cubby’s big advice to Michael and Barbara was always not to let others screw up Bond. When you hire a director, it is a big leap of faith. Although Cubby later approached Peter Hunt for For Your Eyes Only, he was not pleased with Majesty’s. Peter was not someone he could relate to on a personal level. Terence Young, Guy Hamilton and Lewis Gilbert were directors who were brilliant, but never pulled the “artiste” card. John Glen was a craftsman. And Cubby saw them all as problem-solvers. Peter as a director on On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was not seen as a problem solver. He was seen as a bit of an artiste. It would be twenty-five years before the filmmakers would hire a director with whom they did not already have a working relationship. Now, with Mendes—who was brought in at Daniel Craig’s suggestion—there is again the kind of creative trust with a director that Peter Hunt was given because of his history with the series.

There is one last legacy I want to mention that Majesty’s instilled in the series. For many years, the legacy was “stick to the formula, and don’t go stray or the audience will punish you.” But you can read in the interviews with Michael and Barbara that the films in the series that they keep talking about are Goldfinger and Majesty’s. They keep coming back to Majesty’s. Like me, I believe that they felt in a way that it was so close, so wonderful, but it wasn’t quite there. With the casting of Daniel Craig, it is clear they finally felt they had the right actor to take the kinds of creative chances that Majesty’s took, and to learn from the places where Majesty’s didn’t win over audiences. Bond films used to be very safe creatively. Now, they aren’t. Now they are taking chances like they did in 1969 with Majesty’s. But no longer is it one first-time director trying to steer the Bond juggernaut back to Fleming with the producers and the studio simply believing that Bond would never slide at the box-office. Now, it is the entire creative team encouraged by Michael and Barbara to take risks, to dig into the character of Bond, to challenge our expectations. And, in that sense, the legacy of Majesty’s is the continued success of the Bond films today.

Desowitz: The legacy is that it gave the franchise permission to be dark and tragic, and every now and then the franchise returns to the tone of this special movie, most recently with Craig’s trio of films. It also proved that the franchise could last without Connery, even though it would’ve been great to see Connery make this tender story as his Bond finale.

Helfenstein: It’s a legacy of risk-taking and a legacy of influence. While producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman were known gamblers, both in casinos and in the movie business, they gambled to the extreme with OHMSS. Peter Hunt was a first time director. George Lazenby had never acted before. Think about that. They were replacing the world’s best known movie star with an absolute novice. They also took a risk by keeping Fleming’s tragic ending, and keeping the lengthy run time.

From an artistic standpoint the gamble paid off beautifully, with a masterpiece of a film. Financially however, the film did not make as much as some of its predecessors, and so it caused the pendulum to swing away from serious films to more light hearted ones.

The legacy of OHMSS influence has been demonstrated by nods and homages in every subsequent Bond actor era from Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig. The most prolific James Bond film director, with five entries under his belt, John Glen, is a huge fan of OHMSS, and that love for the film is seen throughout his work.

Marc Forster, the director of Daniel Craig’s second Bond film, states that his favorite Bond film is OHMSS, and when asked about his favorite Bond girl, Craig answers that it is Diana Rigg. Forty-five years later, Craig is currently filming SPECTRE, where he will face a villain named Blofeld, and a henchwoman named Irma.

But OHMSS’s influence reaches far outside the Bond series as well. A-list directors like Christopher Nolan and Steven Soderbergh profess their love for the film, and the climax of Nolan’s Inception is a direct nod to OHMSS. OHMSS’s influence isn’t limited to just cinematic film makers. The plot of the second season premiere of the BBC’s wildly successful Sherlock TV series, A Scandal in Belgravia, was influenced by the unused “death train” scene from OHMSS. Series co-creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss discuss the influence of OHMSS, as well as my making-of book, in the audio commentary of the episode.

Forty-five years later, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is no longer seen as the failed experiment, but as the cinematic triumph it truly is.

Pfeiffer: The legacy of OHMSS is that the Bond producers are generally rewarded, at least in the artistic sense, when they are willing to take risks. They did so with Roger Moore, who was the antithesis of Connery but was undeniably the popular choice during the years he played 007. The Dalton films could have been a major turning point in the series but only half-measures were taken and he never really got the opportunity he deserved to introduce an entirely new incarnation of Bond. They got it right with Brosnan, who was pivotal in bringing the series back from a six-year hiatus and proved Bond was relevant in the post-Cold War period. The producers’ big gamble with Daniel Craig has also paid off big time, and it illustrates the most daring gamble they ever took in terms of rebooting the entire series. But we shouldn’t forget that the first ballsy move in that regard occurred with OHMSS. The film was a painful experience for most of those involved due to infighting and bad press, but its legacy is that it holds up as being far superior to most of the CGI-filled monstrosities that pass for thrillers in the modern cinema.

Scivally: After the gadgetry of Goldfinger, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice threatened to make technology the real star of the 007 films, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service returned the focus to James Bond, making him a more human character. For many years after its release, pundits said it was a shame that it did not star Sean Connery, salivating over the prospects of a Connery-Diana Rigg pairing when both were at the height of their sex appeal. But had Connery agreed to make the film, it would have been a very different movie. First of all, there would have been no need to have a stronger actress be the “Bond woman,” since Rigg was hired precisely because Lazenby was an inexperienced unknown. Secondly, Connery’s 007 was a much more callous lady-killer; Lazenby’s Bond showed more sensitivity. One can believe that Lazenby’s Bond would fall in love, and be shattered when his wife is murdered. In the prior film, You Only Live Twice, Bond seems to be falling for Aki, yet when she is killed, he immediately begins speaking to Tanaka about the mission, as if Aki’s death is merely a nuisance, like, say, a hangnail. Furthermore, it was because a new actor was taking on the role that director Peter Hunt felt emboldened to reinvent the series by taking it back to a tone closer to Ian Fleming’s source material and away from the jokey gadget-fests the Bond movies had become. Sadly, the film stumbled at the box-office (though its reputation has grown over the years), and the subsequent 007 films veered away from the more reality-based spy thriller mold of Majesty’s and back to the fun-filled romp model, beginning with Connery’s return in Diamonds Are Forever. James Bond would never be so serious again until Casino Royale.Lastly, the lasting impact of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is that it showed that a James Bond film could be made without Sean Connery in the lead role. The producers maintained that audiences came to the films to see James Bond, not necessarily the actor playing him. Majesty’s helped prove that point.

Coate: Thank you, everyone, for participating and for sharing your thoughts about On Her Majesty’s Secret Service on the occasion of its 45th anniversary.

---

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering A View to a Kill on its 30th Anniversary.

“Only Sean Connery in 1964 could pull off wearing a baby-blue terrycloth onesie and still make every woman in the audience breathe a little more deeply and every man want to be him.” — John Cork

The Digital Bits is pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the golden anniversary of the release of Goldfinger, the classic James Bond adventure starring Sean Connery as Agent 007 and directed by Guy Hamiton. Featuring an unforgettable villain, unforgettable sidekick, unforgettable gadgets, and a Bond Girl with an unforgettable name, Goldfinger, which premiered in London 50 years ago today, delighted audiences becoming the first Bond film to be a global phenomenon, ensuring more 007 films for decades to come. [Read more here...]

As with our previous 007 article, The Bits celebrates the occasion with this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of James Bond authorities. The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Okay, let’s (alphabetically) meet the participants…

Jon Burlingame is the author of The Music of James Bond (Oxford University Press, 2012; and recently issued in paperback with an updated Skyfall chapter). He also authored Sound and Vision: 60 Years of Motion Picture Soundtracks (Watson-Guptill, 2000) and TV’s Biggest Hits: The Story of Television Themes from Dragnet to Friends (Schirmer, 1996). He writes regularly for the entertainment industry trade Variety and has also been published in The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He started writing about spy music for the 1970s fanzine File Forty and has since produced seven CDs of original music from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. for the Film Score Monthly label.

Robert A. Caplen is an attorney and the author of Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (Xlibris, 2010). Based in Washington, DC, he practices antitrust and commercial litigation and has published numerous law review articles in leading academic journals. Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (which was quoted in Sir Roger Moore’s memoir, Bond on Bond) is his first book. He is working on a follow-up book and can be reached via Facebook (www.Facebook.com/bondgirlbook) and Twitter (@bondgirlbook).

James Chapman is a Professor of Film Studies at the University of Leicester and is the author of Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films (Tauris, 2007). His other books include Inside the Tardis: The Worlds of Doctor Who—A Cultural History (Tauris, 2006), Saints and Avengers: British Adventure Series of the 1960s (Tauris, 2002), and (with Nicholas J. Cull) Projecting Empire: Imperialism and Popular Cinema (Tauris, 2009). Chapman is also a Council member of the International Association for Media and History and is Editor of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television.

John Cork is the author (with Bruce Scivally) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He also wrote (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek.He recently wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman); the film is now touring festivals.

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012); and updated for Kindle which includes a chapter on Skyfall and exclusive interview with Sam Mendes). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies, a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Charles Helfenstein is the author of The Making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Spies, 2009) and The Making of The Living Daylights (Spies, 2012).

Mark O’Connell is a punditeer (his word) and the grandson of Bond producer Cubby Broccoli’s chauffeur. With a Prelude by Barbara Broccoli and Foreword by Mark Gatiss, his book Catching Bullets: Memoirs of a Bond Fan (Splendid Books, 2012) is a gilded, unique account of growing up as a Bond fan. He is working on his second book and can be found online here.

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001), and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.”

Steven Jay Rubin is the author of The James Bond Films: A Behind-the-Scenes History (Random House, 1981) and The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia (McGraw-Hill, 2002). He also wrote Combat Films: American Realism, 1945-2010 (McFarland, 2011) and has written for Cinefantastique magazine.

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), and the forthcoming Dracula FAQ. As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He teaches screenwriting, film production and cinema history and theory at The Illinois Institute of Art–Chicago and Columbia College.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest cueing up the Goldfinger soundtrack album and preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course), and then enjoy this conversation with these James Bond authorities.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Goldfinger worthy of celebration on its 50th anniversary?

Jon Burlingame: I have always agreed with composer John Barry that Goldfinger is the Bond film “where it all came together”: the style, the song, the score. I think From Russia with Love and Goldfinger mark the high points of 60s Bond, with Goldfinger lightening the mood just a bit, finding the right balance between suspense, danger, fascinating characters and humor. Gert Frobe and Honor Blackman played worthy adversaries for Sean Connery’s 007, and John Barry’s bold, brassy score tied it all together. It’s hard to imagine a more entertaining, satisfying 007 adventure.

Robert A. Caplen: The third film in Eon Productions’ franchise, Goldfinger marked a conscious effort by Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli and Harry Saltzman to tailor James Bond to American audiences. The first James Bond film to be classified as a box office blockbuster, Goldfinger is noteworthy for redefining cinematic success: it became the fastest-grossing film for its time. It also was groundbreaking for its special effects. Goldfinger became the first film to showcase a laser as part of the plot. And no other image has become as recognizable as Shirley Eaton’s “golden girl,” which offered audiences a new aesthetic for fetishizes sex objects.

There is no question that Goldfinger is deserving of celebration fifty years after its release. The film is equally entertaining today as it was in 1964, and the commentary it offers of social mores—and the portrayals of women—remains highly relevant.

James Chapman: While Goldfingerwasn’t the first James Bond movie, it was the one that really marked the breakthrough for Bond as a cultural phenomenon and ensured the longevity of the series. The first two films, Dr. Noand From Russia with Love, had been big hits in Britain and Europe, but Goldfingerwas the first really to score big at the US box office as well. This might be attributed to the film’s predominantly US setting (though a lot of the locations, including the attack on Fort Knox, were shot at Pinewood Studios in England) and the fact that the conspiracy is directed against the United States.

It was also the success of Goldfinger that kick-started the spy craze of the 1960s. There hadn’t been many Bond imitations following the first two movies—the only one I can think of is the spoof Carry On Spying—but after Goldfinger the floodgates opened with the Derek Flint and Matt Helm films and The Man From U.N.C.L.E., Get Smart, I Spy and Mission: Impossible on television, not to mention the revamp of The Avengers (which began in 1961 and had starred a pre-Pussy Galore Honor Blackman) which became more fantasy-oriented with its fourth series. So it was Goldfinger that really got the whole Sixties spy/secret agent cycle under way.

John Cork:Goldfinger is always worth celebrating! It doesn’t matter if it is the 3rd anniversary or the 150th. The film rocks. There are many great villains, but I would argue that there is no greater criminal villain in film than Goldfinger. Henchmen? Would anyone even want to claim that there is a better henchman than Oddjob? Nah. And it is not too much to say that no female character in cinema history had ever confounded more teachers and parents than Pussy Galore. Best car in a movie? The Aston Martin DB5, hands down. It is a brilliant, funny, sexy, clever and satisfying film on every level.

Bill Desowitz:Goldfinger was the game-changer for Bond and the first modern tent-pole. It was an instant blockbuster and influenced pop culture, spawning Bond mania and then spy mania. Everything was grander, more lavish and elevated, from the action to the humor to the greater physicality of Bond to the pacing to the self-reverential attitude of Bond. Plus there was Ken Adam’s fantastical design, the greedy super villain and his deadly henchman, Oddjob; the sexy and powerful Bond girl, Pussy Galore; the stunning John Barry score and Shirley Bassey’s wild title song; and the introduction of the best gadget of them all, the tricked out Aston Martin DB5. The new director, Guy Hamilton, made it more a Bond movie than a spy movie, in which we follow his POV with one obstacle course after another for Bond to get out of. This became the Bond template.

Charles Helfenstein: It is the perfect encapsulation of what makes James Bond so great. The film has everything you can want in a Bond film: a great teaser sequence, iconic imagery with girls painted in gold, an ambitious villain, an indestructible henchman, a tricked out car, an incredible soundtrack, and in the middle of all this is Sean Connery, playing Bond with a casual, bemused cool that personifies the old Etonian ethos of “Effortless Superiority.”

Mark O’Connell: Goldfinger is most worthy of a golden celebration. It is the film that changed the Bond series and marked the point when Bond changed mainstream cinema. It is not just Sean Connery who emerges from the shadows at the beginning of the film. The modern blockbuster does too. Goldfinger marks the serendipitous moment when the 1960s finally aligned with Bond to create a cultural fusion that the series is still dominated by to this day (check out the deliberate classicism and nods to the Bond of old in Skyfall). Dr. No and From Russia with Lovewere still part of the tail-end of the 1950s—with a certain degree of stiff upper Britishness and hemlines. They are part of that small window I call the “Kennedy Sixties” where it looked like America would continue dominating popular culture in the way it did throughout the 1950s. But things were to change. Suddenly Britain, the Beatles, Biba and Bond were to take center stage. Goldfinger is the stylish overture to that where all these creatives suddenly conspired together (accidentally more than anything) to craft a sharp thriller of a 007 blockbuster. And after the male dominated shenanigans of the first two Bond films, Goldfinger marks a possible entry point for the women in the audience. It certainly is the moment when Bond allows the kids of the audience into its world. From Russia with Loveand Dr. No are great, but arguably very cerebral cat and mouse thrillers. Goldfinger has great movement—its camerawork, music, direction, editing and story. It inhabits a very visual world (Bond on a laser table, Bond and the car, Pussy Galore’s Flying Circus, the fake duck on the diving cap). These are all great for kids…and global audiences not immediately savvy with the Cold War politics.

Lee Pfeiffer:Goldfinger, more than any other Bond film, influenced the trends in pop culture during the 1960s. The previous two films, Dr. No and From Russia with Love, were sizable hits but it was with Goldfinger that the series found the formula that would define the series for decades to come. Director Guy Hamilton emphasized the tongue-in-cheek aspect of the humor moreso than the first two films had done, yet he was careful not to go “over-the-top” into slapstick. (Ironically, Hamilton would be guilty of doing just that on his three later Bond films: Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun.) It was Goldfinger that primarily launched the spy craze of the mid-to-late 1960s and the introduction of the gadget-laden Aston Martin DB5 was largely responsible for this. The vehicle proved to be such a hit that Bond was still driving the car fifty years later in Skyfall. Goldfinger influenced pop culture on an international level and proved that Bond was not a provincial hero but, rather, a character that people in vastly different cultures could relate to.

Steven Jay Rubin:Goldfinger was the film that catapulted 007 from a first rate action series to a true international film phenomenon. It was so successful that it was the first movie screened in a movie theater 24 hours a day (in New York City) and probably made money faster than any film since Gone with the Wind. Creatively, it was the film that perfectly balanced Sean Connery’s coolness, throwaway humor and pure sexiness with some terrifically dramatic action scenes. Although there are, arguably, better James Bond movies, Goldfinger is still the launching vehicle for the series, a film that never loses its freshness and remains the 007 adventure that is the most pure fun, without getting silly or stupid. It also features the best prop in the series—the truly ultimate driving machine—the Aston Martin DB5 with modifications.

Bruce Scivally: Goldfinger is the Bond film that really set the formula the films would follow over the next five decades: a megalomaniacal villain, exotic locations, beautiful women (usually three, including the villainess, the sacrificial lamb and the one Bond ends up with), and cutting-edge gadgetry. Dr. No didn’t have any gadgets to speak of (unless you include the Geiger counter) and From Russia with Love had only the trick briefcase, but Goldfinger had the tricked-out Aston Martin, which raised the bar considerably. From this film onward, outrageous gadgetry would become an integral part of the Bond films. Goldfinger is also the film where the tone of the film was perfected, with just the right blend of humor, action and suspense; the first two Bond films leaned more towards straight-ahead spy thrillers. And for me, Goldfinger is the film where Sean Connery really came into his own and took ownership of the role, with a relaxed confidence and swagger only hinted at in the first two films.

Coate: When did you first see Goldfinger and what was your reaction?

Burlingame: It was a long time ago, so I’m not certain. I didn’t see it in its initial run; I suspect it was on a double bill with another Bond film at a drive-in in the late 1960s. Everyone was talking about Bond movies and I finally got the chance to catch up with the early films in second-run exhibition.

Caplen: I first watched Goldfinger on VHS at a young age, perhaps too young to appreciate, let alone understand, the film’s innuendos. I believe Goldfinger was the first James Bond film I viewed, and it piqued my interest in the franchise. I could never image then that I would be writing about Goldfinger and James Bond many years later.

Chapman: I saw it on ITV in Britain in the late 1970s. It was on a Sunday evening, I was about eight, I think, and it was a school day the next day, so I was on my best behavior all weekend to be allowed to stay up and watch it. Everyone was talking about it the next day. As kids I think we particularly liked Oddjob and his hat, and Bond’s Aston Martin with his gadgets and ejector seat. A few years later when it was shown again on Christmas Day, I would have noticed the girls too!

Cork: I first saw Goldfinger on ABC on September 17, 1972. At the time, I liked James Bond, but I wasn’t any kind of serious fan. I was only ten years old. While I was loving the film (despite it being cropped, cut and filled with commercials), it was a typical Sunday night. We had dinner and then most of my family went to bed as the movie ran. My uncle (who was fresh out of college) came over with a friend and made fun of the film as I was watching it. Then, just as Bond was handcuffed to the bomb in Fort Knox, the local ABC station went off the air. It was 1972, and this kind of thing happened regularly. I begged my uncle to tell me how the film ended. Very convincingly, he told me that the bomb went off in Fort Knox, and that it killed Oddjob, but turned James Bond into “a pulsating blue superhuman.” I have to tell you that at age ten, it seemed like a really cool ending for the movie! When the local station came back on, Bond was on the plane flying to meet the president, and my uncle informed me that I was an idiot for believing him. The first time I saw Goldfinger uncut was when HBO played the Bonds in May/June of 1980. In the fall of 1980, I finally saw Goldfinger on the big screen at the Nuart in Los Angeles. The audience was filled with Bond fans, and it was a great experience. Robert Short, the effects man who worked on many great films, had his DB5 parked out front, and the theater put out a display of Bond memorabilia. It couldn’t have been more fun.

Desowitz: I remember it well. It my introduction to Bond in ‘65 and I was about eight and my parents took me to the La Reina Theater in Sherman Oaks in L.A. on Ventura Blvd., and afterward we had ice cream at Wil Wright’s. I remember asking if that was Bond in the scuba suit in the opening scene and when he fought Oddjob, I whispered that he should grab the electrical wire. It was a distinctive moviegoing thrill and set me on my path to becoming a lifelong fan.

Helfenstein: Unfortunately my first viewing of Goldfinger didn’t quite do it justice—I first saw a butchered, pan-and-scan version of it on ABC in the late 70s. Despite those drawbacks, the film greatly impressed me—especially the tuxedo under the wetsuit, the car, Bond’s fight with Oddjob…and the cornucopia of blondes.

O’Connell: I first saw Goldfinger in January 1987. It was on ITV midweek. It was not the first or even the third Bond movie I had seen but already its mark and stature in the Bond canon was known to me. Like a Greatest Hits album its key beats—the car, the song, the artwork, the gold, the music, and the henchman—were familiar way before I saw it for the first time. It is one of the Bond movies whose reputation precedes itself at every turn.

Pfeiffer: I first saw the film at age eight at the Loew’s Theatre in Jersey City, New Jersey. It’s a peculiarity of “Baby Boomer Generation” males that we seem to have such trivia as where we saw a movie and with whom emblazoned in our minds. Nevertheless, my dad, who had taken me to see the previous Bond film, escorted me to this one. I was blown away by it. I don’t think today’s movies ever have that kind of impact on audiences, who are now rather blasé about special effects and action sequences. But seeing that DB5 in action, the audience howling at the use of the gadgets and finally the “innovative” introduction of a laser beam proved to be unforgettable elements in my mind. On a more crass level, when we returned home, my dad was raving about the film to my mom and I remember him saying, “There’s a woman in it named Pussy Galore!” I didn’t understand why they thought this was so amusing because I equated the name with the benign Miss Kitty on Gunsmoke. Nevertheless, we all trotted back to the theater to see the film again the next night because my mom had to see it for herself. I later went again on my own—the first time I had seen a movie unaccompanied. Mr. Bond has provided many such pleasant memories to countless millions of movie fans around the globe.

Rubin: I saw Goldfinger at Christmas 1964 at the Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Hollywood. It was wonderful. As a junior high school student in Los Angeles, I had read the book before I saw the movie, which was only the second time I had done that (the first was Paul Brickhill’s book that became The Great Escape). Bond was a big event that year—like a Harry Potter or a Star Wars film today.

Scivally: I believe I first saw Goldfinger on television in 1972, when it first aired on ABC. I know it was the first 007 film I saw, and at that young age (I was 11), I was most impressed by the Aston Martin. I continued watching the Bond films whenever they came on television (there was no home video in those days, at least not in rural north Alabama), and when puberty kicked in I began to appreciate them for more than just the spy thrills and gadgets. Coming of age in a very remote, agrarian region, the sophisticated, world-traveling, authority-defying, sexually potent James Bond was a powerful fantasy figure. I was hooked.

Coate: Where do you think Goldfinger ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Burlingame: Certainly near, or at, the very top. If I had to choose the five best Bonds, I think Goldfinger would be either #1 or #2.

Caplen: It is very difficult to rank the James Bond films, and it depends upon what criteria are utilized. In terms of story line, success, and cinematography, Goldfinger should rank among the top films in the franchise. [In my book] I have focused upon the presentation of women in the franchise, and in that regard, Goldfinger would not receive a high rating from feminists. Regardless, and as I have written, the manner in which the Bond Girls are presented in Goldfinger reinforced an archetype that defined the cinematic franchise. In that regard, Goldfinger cannot be underestimated.

Chapman: It tends to be seen as the one that really established the Bond formula: megalomaniac criminal mastermind with a grand conspiracy; a strong, silent henchman; and the gadgets that Bond uses. The previous film, From Russia with Love, had been a more realistic spy thriller, quite old-fashioned in some ways, with its Orient Express scenes and a plot revolving around a stolen cypher machine. With Goldfingerthe Bond series moved, decisively as it happens, towards techno-hardware and fantasy (e.g. the laser and Bond’s car).

Looked at today the film still seems fresh and hasn’t dated. Sean Connery is relaxed and commanding in the role (though there are tense moments such as the scene where he is spread-eagled before the laser beam) and the casting of the supporting parts such as Shirley Eaton as Jill Masterson and Harold Sakata as Oddjob is spot-on.

Cork: For years, I’ve always said you could just take the first four Bond films and put them on a loop for me. I love them, and like a true fan, I even love them for their faults. I can amuse myself by enjoying the anti-logic of Goldfinger explaining his plan to a bunch of guys he plans to kill, or even having gone to the trouble to have strange flashing lights that go on and off for no reason when poison gas is spraying the hoods’ convention. One can argue that Casino Royale and Skyfall are more engaging to someone who is only now being introduced to Bond, but, I’ll tell you, only Sean Connery in 1964 could pull off wearing a baby-blue terrycloth onesie and still make every woman in the audience breathe a little more deeply and every man want to be him. Goldfinger isn’t only one of the most entertaining Bond films, it is one of the most important films of the Sixties, one of the most essential films ever made. Everyone with a pulse sees that movie and understands the appeal of James Bond.

Desowitz: I think it’s in the top three, still the best for many. I won’t argue with Connery about From Russia with Love being the best.

Helfenstein: If we are ranking the films in the series by how influential they are, then Goldfinger occupies the #1 spot without question. If one were to pick a single film to represent what is great about the James Bond series and what makes it popular, then Goldfinger would be the obvious choice. But if we are choosing a film that is artistically the best film, I would have to edge out Goldfinger just slightly and give that award to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

O’Connell: It is not the best Bond movie (007 spends a lot of the film passively overhearing and not actively investigating) but it is the one where as I say in Catching Bullets the designer alloys of Ken Adam, John Barry, Peter Hunt, Guy Hamilton, Eon Productions and Sean Connery all come together to gilded effect. I wonder if Goldfingerhad not happened in the way it did we would be privy to a continued 007 franchise now. Possibly not. The Bond phenomenon was obviously growing on the success of the first two films and the explosion of interest via Fleming’s books. But it was not a phenomenon at all until Goldfinger gave enough creative and financial confidence to Eon Productions, Cubby and Harry to really go for it with the real box office game-changer: Thunderball.

Pfeiffer: Most people consider Goldfinger the best of the series, though I would argue that valid cases can be made for From Russia with Love, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Casino Royale and Skyfall, the latter two because they so drastically and successfully reinvented the series.

Rubin: I rank Goldfinger just below the Daniel Craig Casino Royale. So that would be #2. Casino Royale is so good and Craig is such a revelation as Bond, I have to place it #1. However, since Goldfinger was the first 007 adventure I ever say, it remains my favorite. It’s also my favorite script with the best lines of dialogue in the series. It also gets the biggest laugh in the series—not because it’s stupid or inane, but because it’s just funny. And that’s the introduction to Pussy Galore.

Scivally: In my estimation, Goldfinger is still hands-down the most entertaining of all the Bond films. If I wanted to introduce someone who’d never seen a 007 film to Bond, but could only show them one film, I’d choose Goldfinger. To me, it’s simply the distilled essence of Bond. However, that said, it ranks #2 on my list of personal favorite; From Russia with Love is #1, because I enjoy the cat-and-mouse game between SPECTRE and Bond, and 007 operating with almost no gadgets.

Coate: In what way was Auric Goldfinger a memorable villain?

Burlingame: He was among the best ever: truly mad, yet insane in a thoughtful, calculating way! The plot of the movie has one of the greatest twists in Bond: Goldfinger doesn’t need to own the gold in Fort Knox; he just wants to blow it up so that his own stash will be worth even more! How great is that? And Gert Frobe is completely believable in this mad role.

Caplen: Goldfinger, the mastermind of Operation Grand Slam, is, in some respects, more plausible than other over-the-top villains in the franchise, namely Dr. No, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Stromberg, and Hugo Drax. Goldfinger is, in essence, a crooked businessman: a gold smuggler whose obsession leads to him scheme a way of penetrating Fort Knox in order to radiate the American gold supply and increase the value of his own holdings. Thus, his motives are intriguing and extend beyond the prototypical lust for world domination. Goldfinger is memorable because he is essentially the first James Bond villain to out-maneuver the Americans, requiring James Bond’s services to spare Fort Knox and restore order. As one scholar argued, Ian Fleming created James Bond as a vehicle through which to capture some nostalgia for the pre-World War Two supremacy of the British Empire. Defeating Goldfinger on American soil comports with that theory.

Chapman: Goldfinger has some of the best lines (e.g. “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!” in response to Bond’s “Do you expect me to talk?”) and Gert Frobe has a commanding presence on screen. The scene where he explains how he intends to “knock off” Fort Knox works because he seems to believe it. For my money Dr. No and Goldfinger were the most memorable of the early villains. Several of the early Bonds revolved around the villain Blofeld, who became a bit of a stooge with his pet cat, but Goldfinger just seems a slightly better-realized character—by the standards of diabolical master criminals that is.

Cork: A great villain needs to get more powerful, seemingly smarter during the course of a story. The film starts with Bond busting Goldfinger as he cheats at cards, then Bond steals Goldfinger’s paid companion. But Goldfinger exacts a brutal price for this. Bond then beats Goldfinger at golf, but all-too-soon Bond finds himself strapped down with a laser pointed between his legs, his car destroyed. This is the halfway point of the film. Hero and villain have traded blows almost as equals. But when we enter the laser room, it is like we have passed through the looking glass. Goldfinger isn’t a rich gold smuggler, but an obsessed man who is on the verge of destabilizing the global economy. Even late in the film, when Bond points out the absurdity of trying to tote the gold out of Fort Knox, Goldfinger is one step ahead. When he discovers that Bond has been able to foil much of the plan, he whips off that overcoat and no one in the audience ever saw his escape coming. Most actors who have played Bond villains gradually allow 007 to get under their skin, to unnerve them as the story progresses. Not Gert Frobe’s Goldfinger. He snaps that pencil early on, and that’s it. He gets calmer and smarter as the film progresses. I love that. He is, for me, the perfect villain.

Desowitz: Goldfinger was the first freelance villain not associated with SPECTRE and is even more larger than life than Dr. No. His obsession with gold and winning at all costs is very personal.

Helfenstein: Goldfinger sticks out as a memorable villain for so many reasons. Compared to Dr. No and Grant, the two previous villains, his personality is so much bigger. While his predecessors were almost robotic, Goldfinger is having a good time because he enjoys being a villain. He toys with Bond and laughs at him. Frobe hit the sweet spot of what makes a villain great.

When I was researching my first book, I was stunned to uncover the fact that screenwriter Richard Maibaum kept trying to bring Gert Frobe back to the series so many times—not just for Thunderball, but also for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Diamonds are Forever, and even as late as Octopussy!

O’Connell: He is pitched as this nearly gauche Toad of Toad Hall figure, the first societal duel Bond has with a villain. He is also the first Bond villain to hold that certain quality that all the great Bond villains (Scaramanga, Silva, Kananga and Largo) have and that is that he is just a bad Bond, or 007 gone wrong.

Pfeiffer: Auric Goldfinger is one of cinema’s most enduring and classic villains, thanks in no small part to the brilliance of casting Gert Frobe in what would become his signature role. Frobe not only fit the bill physically, he was an accomplished actor, as well. What many people don’t know is that he barely spoke a word of English. He spoke his dialogue phonetically and British actor Michael Collins dubbed him in the final cut.

Rubin: Auric Goldfinger is still the best villain in the series because he’s simultaneously larger than life, but still a real believable person. Like Bond, he never becomes a caricature and he has some truly chilling moments—particularly when he’s about to fry 007’s privates with a laser beam, or lecture a bunch of doomed henchmen on his scheme, or getting 007 to understand the true nature of his plan. He also plays a wicked game of golf, cheating as usual.

Scivally: As embodied by Gert Frobe and voiced by Michael Collins, Goldfinger was the quintessence of Bond villainy: physically imposing, charming, calculating, ruthless and quite mad. And he had some of the best dialogue of any Bond villain, including his priceless response to Bond’s “Do you expect me to talk?”—”No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE!”

Coate: In what way was Pussy Galore a memorable Bond Girl?

Burlingame: Honor Blackman could not improve on this performance. Tough yet tender, beautiful, resourceful, yet vulnerable at the right moments. Maybe one of the two or three best Bond women.

Caplen: I have written extensively about Pussy Galore in my book, Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond. Honor Blackman’s portrayal of this unique character is exceptional. I believe that Pussy Galore is one of the most important Bond Girl characters in what I have termed the Golden Era of the Bond Girl. On the surface, Pussy Galore seems imbued with attributes that would brand her a modern-day feminist. But all that glitters is not gold. I argue that Pussy Galore represents something very different: she actually reinforces a much more traditional archetype addressing women’s appropriate role in society. Pussy Galore is therefore both groundbreaking and reactionary, and no discussion of the Bond Girl evolution can be complete without considering her contributions to the development of the Bond Girl archetype I believe the James Bond franchise developed and continues to refine today.

Chapman: Well, there’s her name for one thing! She was the first of the girls—at least the first of the main girls—who was more than just eye candy but could give Bond as good as she got in return. In the book she’s a lesbian, and her conversion to heterosexuality to help Bond out isn’t very plausible. In the film, though, the lesbianism is downplayed—it’s hinted at but not overtly. And, of course, the characterization was influenced by the casting of Honor Blackman, who brought the association of her role as Cathy Gale in The Avengers. The scene where Pussy shows off her judo prowess seems to have been written specifically for Honor Blackman.

Cork: Two words: “pussy galore.” I mean, come on. That’s a name that makes the right people smile and everyone else’s mouths go dry. But Pussy Galore is also the right character at just the right moment in history. Homosexuality was just wiggling its toe into popular culture. Some Like It Hot was five years earlier, and The Children’s Hour came out in 1961, but both those films play only with the existence of homosexuality without really indulging in it as anything attractive. In Britain, there were a slew of films dealing with male homosexuality: The Victim (a very good, but depressing film with Dirk Bogarde), and, of course, the two Oscar Wilde films (that both played such strange roles in Bond history). From Russia with Love had a very unattractive lesbian with Rosa Klebb, which was more of the standard portrayal in popular culture.

Pussy Galore in Goldfinger was different. Her lesbianism (never explicitly mentioned, but clear to adult viewers) is accompanied by confidence, not self-loathing. It is not portrayed so much as a perversion, but rather a sexually legitimate lifestyle. Viewers are attracted to Pussy Galore, even before she comes over to Bond’s side. She is strong, attractive, alluring and such a refreshing change from the way women were often portrayed in escapist films of the day. Of course, we can wince now at the rather distasteful “rape conversion therapy” that Bond employs to win her over. And younger audiences do roll their eyes, shake their heads and groan when the forced kiss turns into a warm embrace. But the same thing can be said of Rhett Butler carrying Scarlet O’Hara up the stairs in Gone with the Wind, and John Wayne’s Sean Thornton in The Quiet Man pulling Mary Kate into the doorway, twisting her arm up behind her and kissing her. But Pussy Galore in so many ways is a remarkable character. She is a sexually liberated, confident lesbian and audiences loved her. That just didn’t happen in mainstream movies before 1964.

Part of the great success of the character came from a brilliant idea that the filmmakers had (and I can’t tell you if it was one of the screenwriters or Guy Hamilton or someone else), but they took their cue for Pussy Galore from a real person: Barbara “Joe” Carstairs. Carstairs used her family fortune to race boats and later bought a private island in the Bahamas and went “back to nature.” Because the filmmakers had a model they could use beyond the character in the novel, and because there was a great actress in the role (Honor Blackman), the character came to life in ways that might have otherwise been squandered. In her own way, Pussy Galore feels real on some level. Blackman had strength and a swagger in the role that convinced us that she could be the leader of a real flying circus. She was just butch enough and just sexy enough to be something that moviegoers had never encountered.

Desowitz: Pussy Galore is memorable because of the name and getting it by the censors, the fact that she’s a lesbian and resists Bond at first, and is able to share Judo flips with him, and because Bond has to work so hard to seduce her.

Helfenstein: Besides her suggestive name, Pussy Galore is memorable for her homosexuality, greatly toned down in the film compared to the book. Bond’s “conversion” of her would probably not play well with today’s audiences. That scene aside, what makes her so memorable is that she is Bond’s equal. While the two previous girls, Honey and Tanya, were essentially innocents caught up in Bond’s world, Pussy is an operator in the criminal underworld and even has her own team. Her decision to switch sides saves the day.

Actress wise, Blackman shows off her physical skills learned during her time during The Avengers, and was different in the fact that she was older than Connery. That older female to younger male casting age difference has only happened one other time in the series, when they chose Rigg, also an Avengers veteran, for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

O’Connell: Honor Blackman’s Galore is memorable for being the first Bond girl that stands up to Bond. And she was doing it way before the series felt it had to appease any naïve notions of sexism.

Pfeiffer: Although the character of Pussy Galore was watered down for the film version (she’s an overt lesbian in the novel), the character still broke new ground in terms of female empowerment—even if she does fall under Bond’s spell after one kiss. Here was a tough, kick-ass woman who was adept at defending herself and who is every bit as resourceful as Bond or Goldfinger. There are veiled hints about her sexuality (all of her pilots are gorgeous females and she initially tells Bond she is “immune” to his charm), but in retrospect, this was a rather unique female hero to bring to cinema screens in 1964. As with Gert Frobe, so much of the credit must go to the actor, in this case Honor Blackman, who was letter-perfect in the role.

Rubin: Pussy Galore is memorable because she’s so sexy and cool and has the greatest name ever invented for a fictional character in the history of writing. Honor Blackman has made her a true legend in the series.

Scivally: Pussy Galore was the first “Bond woman” who seemed to be almost his equal: intelligent, self-assured, capable, an ace at judo and “a damned good pilot.” She wasn’t just a wilting damsel waiting to be rescued; she gave as good as she got.

Coate: What is the legacy of Goldfinger?

Burlingame: I am especially fond of the Goldfinger score as quintessential, top-of-the-line John Barry. After making a hit of the James Bond Theme on Dr. No and crafting a suspenseful, effective score for From Russia with Love, Broccoli and Saltzman gave Barry the opportunity to write both song and score on Goldfinger and Barry didn’t disappoint. From the thrilling opening song (with those diabolical Bricusse & Newley lyrics) belted by Shirley Bassey to the intricacies of his orchestral score, including the brilliant Dawn Raid on Fort Knox variations on the theme, John Barry helped to define the sound of Bond—and indeed, create a new subgenre of film music in his combination of pop, jazz and symphonic music—for all time with this score. I hope that, in all the celebrations of Goldfinger, that accomplishment is not forgotten.

Caplen: Goldfinger opened the American market to James Bond. That fact, by itself, is perhaps Goldfinger’s true legacy. The James Bond franchise would not be as successful today had Goldfinger not had such an important impact upon American audiences. Goldfinger also presented to the world one of Ian Fleming’s greatest “name as sex” jokes, beginning a long legacy that will always be associated with the James Bond franchise and has been parodied by others (such as the Austin Powers trilogy) ever since.

Chapman: It’s still a classic Bond movie—classic both in the sense of being a favorite with fans and being a representative example of the style and format of the films. I think that when most boys (and men!) fantasize about being Bond, it’s the Bond of Goldfinger—whether for the Aston Martin, the Anthony Sinclair three-piece suit, or simply the opportunity to dally with girls called Pussy.

Cork: I think the biggest legacy of Goldfinger is very different than most folks would imagine. If you look at the top-grossing films of the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, there are very few that one could categorize as part of a franchise. There were franchises, but they were Tarzan, Frankenstein, Francis the Talking Mule and Ma and Pa Kettle films. These films made lots of money, but the following entries were generally B-movie fare—filler for the masses that were not nearly as important to a studio as an “event film” based on an “important” best-selling novel. Bond changed that. The Bond films became the first “tent-pole” films—movies that could virtually be guaranteed blockbuster status just because of the presence of the main character. The folks who grew up on Bond are running studios now. Look at the films the studios bank on in recent years: Harry Potter, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Batman, Transformers (and, yes, Star Wars and Indiana Jones). Huge budgets…no expense spared…but they are selling an endless stream of films, not just one film. Even the failures of recent years like The Lone Ranger and John Carter were attempts to create a franchise. And franchises are where the money comes from. The studios know that they can sell Transformers packages on iTunes or to Netflix or Amazon or in endless rotation on cable networks for decades to come, just as has happened with the Bond packages. And Goldfinger, more than any other single film, is the movie that proved a series could be made like A-films and do the box office of A-films, even out-grossing the films that came before in the series. Every time another big-budget tent-pole franchise film comes out and makes a fortune, I think that those filmmakers should give a tip of the hat to Goldfinger.

Desowitz: The legacy is clear enough with the audience cheering at the DB5’s appearance in Skyfall for the 50th anniversary and then how its destruction elicited the biggest emotional response from Bond in the entire film. Goldfinger made Bond and the franchise a pop culture phenomenon and it was a fitting tribute.

Helfenstein: I think the legacy of Goldfinger is that it moved the series from the smaller-scale, cold war thriller to the wide open grander scale of agent vs super villain. While Terence Young’s two films set the template for Bond’s elegance and panache, Guy Hamilton updated that recipe with a stronger dose of the fantastic, and a larger dose of humor.

When Alfred Hitchcock saw the film, he only had one comment to the director. It wasn’t about the glorious Ken Adam sets, the incredible car, or the blaring soundtrack—he complemented Hamilton on the little old lady that waddles out of the checkpoint with a machine gun.

Bond screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz stated that the instant Connery pressed the red eject button on the Aston Martin, the series changed forever. Anything was possible from then on. Years later the producers would try to transfer some of Goldfinger’s cool to Brosnan and Craig by giving them the Goldfinger Aston Martin, and in Skyfall Craig’s Bond even threatens to deploy the ejector seat with that famous red button, 48 years after the gadget debuted.

Half a century later, Goldfinger’s influence still resonates both in and outside the James Bond series.

O’Connell: The fact that a film known only as Bond 24 is in pre-production. That is its legacy. Goldfinger sealed the deal. It raised Bond onscreen from just being a literary adaptation of a successful run of books to being a franchise at the pinnacle of contemporary music and film scoring, film editing, production design, and marketing. I don’t think the Bond series was a franchise until Goldfinger fired up the enthusiasm of Eon Productions and the world and melted the box office norms by creating a delicious, sexy, dangerous, sadistically sketched narrative and production template for 007. It is not the only template for Bond, but it is the one that the series has been guided by ever since.

Pfeiffer: The legacy of Goldfinger is illustrated by the fact you are still writing about the film fifty years later. It has a timeless quality and presents a moment in time when the Sixties were still kind of fun, at least in more privileged parts of the world. The dissention of the protest movements, high profile assassinations and the heightening of Cold War tensions would all threaten to make Bond look like a relic at least for a period of years. However, Goldfinger represents master filmmaking craftsmanship, from the performances to every aspect of the production. It’s also the last time Sean Connery appeared to be having a genuinely good time playing 007.

Rubin: One hundred years from now, film aficionados will still admire the film for its pure adrenaline rush, its colorful locations and set pieces, witty script, wonderful performances by a great cast and a perfect musical score by John Barry. I believe Goldfinger defined movie cool in the 60s, on a par with the Steve McQueen film Bullitt. Put those two films together and you see all that was cool in the era. Interestingly, Connery and McQueen, born the same year, had similar career trajectories—at least initially, although Sean has had the far more lengthy career.

Scivally: The success of Goldfinger propelled 007 into the popular consciousness, making Bond one of the three most memorable B’s of the 1960s (the other two being the Beatles and Batman). Its success also set off a slew of imitators both in cinemas and on television, sparking the mid-1960s spy craze, and set the style for a series that continues to evolve and attract a massive audience five decades later. It truly was a film with a Midas touch.

Coate: Thank you, everyone, for participating and for sharing your thoughts on Goldfinger.

---

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering Thunderball on its 50th Anniversary.

“It has the personality not of a particular movie but of a product, of something arrived at by corporate decision.”— Vincent Canby, The New York Times

Blockbuster. Juggernaut. Game Changer.

The event, or tentpole, film was taken to new heights during the summer of 1989, and the industry hasn’t been the same since. Sure, there were hits — and megahits — before, but everything this did was new, unorthodox or amplified: mass-saturation marketing, title-less posters, narration-less trailers, loads of tie-in merchandise, dual soundtrack release, one-day-early sneak-preview screenings, anti-piracy electronic-coded release prints, shattered box-office records, home-video release while still in theaters, franchise. [Read on here…]

The Digital Bits is pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the silver anniversary of the release of Batman, Tim Burton’s take on the Caped Crusader starring Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight and Jack Nicholson as the Joker. As with other entries in this series, The Bits celebrates the occasion with this retrospective article featuring two interviews (one with film historian and author Bruce Scivally who discusses the legacy of the film and character, and the other with film music authority Jeff Bond who discusses one of the stand-out elements of the film: Danny Elfman’s music).

The article also includes some quotes from well-known movie critics, production & exhibition information, a list of the movie’s deluxe 70-millimeter presentations, and a revealing compilation of box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context.

BATMAN NUMBER$

1 = Rank among top-grossing movies during opening weekend

1 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1989 (summer season)

1 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1989 (domestic)

1 = Rank among Warner Bros.’ top-grossing movies of all time at close of run

2 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie

2 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1989 (worldwide)

3 = Rank among top-grossing movies of the 1980s

5 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release

5 = Rank on all-time list of top-grossing movies at close of original run

10 = Number of days to gross $100 million*

12 = Number of years Warner Bros.’ top-grossing movie

13 = Number of years industry’s top-grossing superhero/comic book movie

$400.0 million = Home video and ancillary market revenue (approximate)

$411.3 million = Worldwide box-office gross

$501.1 million = Domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

$750.0 million = Tie-in merchandise revenue (approximate)

$786.4 million = Worldwide box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

*Established new industry record

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“The movie of the decade.” — Erik Preminger, KGO-TV, San Francisco

“The Gotham City created in Batman is one of the most distinctive and atmospheric places I’ve seen in the movies. It’s a shame something more memorable doesn’t happen there. Batman is a triumph of design over story, style over substance — a great-looking movie with a plot you can’t care much about.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“…the best of the summer blockbusters because of its originality. Director Tim Burton does not kowtow to the juvenile sensibility of most summertime movies, and the result is a dark, smart and moody drama filled with more than a few laughs provided by Jack Nicholson as the evil Joker.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“The problem — I think — is that while Burton is a great visual stylist, intellectually, he’s as arrested as Pee-wee Herman. Burton’s more interested in fetishistic behavior and surreal/sadistic imagery than he is in ‘girls’ or anything as dull as character development.” — James Verniere, Boston Herald

“Dark, haunting and poetic, Tim Burton’s Batman is a magnificent living comic book. From its opening shots, as the camera descends into the grim, teeming streets of Gotham City, the movie fixes you in its gravitational pull. It’s an enveloping, walk-in vision. You enter into it as you would a magical forest in a fairy tale, and the deeper you’re drawn into it, the more frighteningly vivid it becomes. Ultimately, that’s what Batman is — a violent, urban fairy tale. And it’s as rich and satisfying a movie as you’re likely to see all year.” — Hal Hinson, The Washington Post

“The much-publicized Prince songs are terrible and rather intrusive, but Danny Elfman’s score is as flamboyant and huge as the movie, perfectly complementing the action. And the sets and technical credits are fascinating from beginning to end.” — Chris Hicks, (Salt Lake City) Deseret News

“It comes as no surprise that Jack Nicholson steals every scene in a sizable role as the hideously disfigured Joker. Nicholson embellishes fascinatingly baroque designs with his twisted features, lavish verbal pirouettes and inspired excursions into the outer limits of psychosis. It’s a masterpiece of sinister comic acting.” — Variety

”Well, bat-fans, your days and nights and weeks and months of anticipation and dread have come down to this very day — Batman is playing in theaters. And unlike all the megabuck sequels of the summer, Batman lives up to its billing. It’s original, wild, daring, funny, frightening and unexpected — everything a great film of this sort should be.” — Donald Porter, (Ogden) Standard-Examiner

“Some things are wanted too badly. Case in point: the Batman movie. Could anything satisfy the unprecedented anticipation this film stirred up? The answer, of course, is no. A different kind of want develops while you’re watching. Marveling at its audacious, eclectic design, Jack Nicholson’s certifiably crazed Joker, appreciating Michael Keaton’s efforts to bring dignity and wit to the Dark Knight and his alter ego, Bruce Wayne — for that and more, you want to love it, but you can’t. Batman is one of those films that gets everything right except the script. The core failure undercuts all that the movie does well. But what Batman does well, especially in this summer of risk-free, unimaginative sequels, is worth celebrating.”— Bob Strauss, Los Angeles Daily News

“Anton Furst’s production design is so evocative that one expects to meet a fiend on the order of Dr. Mabuse, Fritz Lang’s master criminal, rather than D.C. Comics’ Joker, who, though brilliantly played by Jack Nicholson, simply isn’t up to the apocalyptic grandeur of the décor…. Thanks to the work of Mr. Furst, Batman is fun to look at, at least for a while. Not since Lang’s Dr. Mabuse: the Gambler (1922), Metropolis (1926) and The Last Will of Dr. Mabuse (1933) have so much talent and money gone into the creation of an expressionistic world so determinedly corrupt…. Yet nothing in the movie sustains this vision. The wit is all pictorial. The film meanders mindlessly from one image to the next, as does a comic book. It doesn’t help that the title character remains such a wimp even when played by Michael Keaton. Nobody could do anything with this ridiculous conceit, but asking Mr. Keaton, one of our most volatile actors, to play Bruce Wayne/Batman is like asking him to put on an ape suit and play the title role in King Kong…. Batman is a movie without any dominant tone or style other than that provided by Mr. Furst. It’s neither funny nor solemn. It has the personality not of a particular movie but of a product, of something arrived at by corporate decision.”— Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“Breathtaking! As played by Jack Nicholson, the Joker is Wild!”— Gene Shalit, The Today Show

“Daring, spectacular, exciting. Worth the wait, worth the hype and worth the wait in line. Michael Keaton makes you believe in Batman.”— Pat Collins, WWOR-TV, New York

“Bad news, batfans. In Batman, the Joker finally gets the better of the hero. He pulls off the crime of the century right below the Caped Crusader’s nose: He steals his movie.”— Jeff Strickler, (Minneapolis) Star Tribune

“Wow! This is easily one of the best movies I’ve ever seen in my life. There was not one minute where I was bored. The lighting was right on the mark, the direction superb and the performances flawless. If you don’t enjoy this flick you are comatose, my friend.”— Larry King, CNN

“Batman’s style is both daunting and lurching; it has trouble deciding which of its antagonists should set the tone. It can be as manic as the Joker, straining to hear the applause of outrage; it can be as implosive as Batman-Bruce, who seems crushed by the burden of his schizoid eminence. This tension nearly exhausts the viewer and the film.” — Richard Corliss, Time

“Yes, the Joker is definitely wild in Batman. Nicholson’s role is so large, in fact, that this film should almost be called The Joker… Considering all of the buildup this film has received, many moviegoers will find it a letdown. If Robin were around, he probably would say, ‘Holy Disappointment, Batman!’” — Jeff Bahr, Omaha World-Herald

“Batman is half brilliant. It looks as if Burton was aware of the flaws in this project but that, handed a big-budget blockbuster after only two movies, he couldn’t blast all of them away, as Richard Donner was able to do in the first Superman. There’s hardly a doubt that Batman will reap zillions. Let’s hope that Tim Burton won’t get caught up in the sequel syndrome. He should pursue his own projects — that’s the real excitement of a talent like his.” — Jack Kroll, Newsweek

PRODUCTION & EXHIBITION INFORMATION + TRIVIA

By the end of its original release, Batman became Warner Bros.’ highest-grossing movie and the industry’s highest-grossing comic book/superhero movie. The movie eclipsed the Warners record set by The Exorcist sixteen years earlier and held as the studio’s top earner until topped by Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in 2001. It eclipsed the comic book/superhero record set by Superman eleven years earlier and held as the top-earner until Spider-Man surpassed it in 2002.

Now commonplace with event movies and tentpoles, Batman was the first movie to include nationwide sneak-preview screenings the evening prior to release. Prior to Batman, several high-profile movies—including some James Bond, Star Wars and Indiana Jones sequels, and Cobra—had pre-release screenings (i.e. midnight and/or round-the-clock opening-day screenings) but these were limited to a handful of theaters/cities; Batman appears to have been the first movie to have sneaks on a mass scale.

The world premiere of Batman was held on June 19, 1989, at the Mann Village and Mann Bruin theaters in the Westwood Village community of Los Angeles.

Batman was the first movie to gross over $40 million on an opening weekend.

A new opening-weekend box-office gross record was set three times during a span of a month during the summer movie-going season of 1989. First, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade established a new record with a May 26-28 gross of $29.4 million, eclipsing the previous record of $26.3 million set in 1987 by Beverly Hills Cop II. Ghostbusters II broke Indiana Jones’ record with a June 16-18 opening weekend tally of $29.5 million. That record lasted a week until Batman arrived and established by a wide margin a new industry record with a June 23-25 opening weekend gross of $40.5 million ($42.7 million including its June 22 sneak-preview screenings). Batman’s record held for three years before being topped by Batman Returns ($45.7 million).

Batman had two separate soundtrack albums issued—an unusual practice at the time—one featuring Danny Elman’s symphonic score and the other featuring Prince’s songs.

Batman was the third feature film of Tim Burton scored by Danny Elfman. Subsequently, Elfman provided the music to every Burton-directed film except Ed Wood (1994). Burton & Elfman are among the most prolific director-composer collaborations.

The first coming attractions trailer for Batman was issued in December 1988 and was initially screened with selected engagements of Tequila Sunrise. Subsequently, the trailer was attached to the prints of some of Warner Bros.’ winter and spring 1989 releases, including Her Alibi and Dead Calm. A newer, more polished trailer was issued with prints of Pink Cadillac. A trailer for Young Einstein was attached to the release prints of Batman.

Batman was among 17 first-run movies and three classic re-issues released during 1989 with 70-millimeter prints for selected engagements. The premium-format prints cost about eight times that of a conventional 35mm print to manufacture but grossed more than the 35mm engagements in most situations. Large-format 70mm was superior to conventional 35mm prints because the larger print allowed a sharper, brighter and steadier projected image and its magnetic soundtrack provided discrete channels of audio with incredible fidelity.

Awards won included an Oscar for Art Direction, a Grammy for Danny Elfman’s music, and a People’s Choice Award for Favorite Motion Picture.

Despite a worldwide box-office gross exceeding $400 million, industry trade publications reported a decade after release that Batman was in the red.

During an era where six months was the average amount of time between theatrical release and home-video release (and even longer for most blockbusters), Batman pushed the theatrical-to-video “window” to under five months by arriving on home-video formats in November 1989, and also marked the first time a summer blockbuster was rush-released to home video in time for Christmas.

The first home-video (VHS & Beta) release of Batman was in 1989. Its first LaserDisc release was in 1990. (It was also released in 8mm and Spanish-subtitled VHS.) The first cable TV/premium-channel broadcast was in July 1990. The first network television broadcast was on CBS on April 29, 1992. Its first DVD release was in 1997. Its first Region 1 Blu-ray release was in 2009 (4-movie anthology set) and 2010 (individual release).

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a list of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Batman in the United States and Canada. Arguably, these were the best theaters in which to experience Batman. Less than five percent of the film’s print run was in the deluxe 70mm format. So which theaters received the coveted prints? Read on…. (The list does not include any 70mm move-over, sub-run, re-release or international engagements.)

INTERVIEW #1

Bruce Scivally is the author of Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006) and (with John Cork) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002) and the forthcoming Dracula FAQ (Hal Leonard Publishing, 2015). As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He teaches screenwriting, film production and cinema history and theory at The Illinois Institute of Art — Chicago and Columbia College.

The Bits caught up with Bruce to discuss the impact of the 1989 movie and the enduring appeal of the Batman character.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Batman worthy of celebration on its 25th anniversary?

Bruce Scivally: Batman was a true movie phenomenon. It was a film that, after taking nearly 10 years to launch, encountered enormous skepticism and criticism while it was in production, but in the months leading up to its release, the newly-designed Batman symbol was seen on posters practically everywhere you looked. By the time it hit theaters, audiences were primed for something special, and the film delivered. It was a totally fresh take on the Batman character, achieving what producer Michael Uslan had hoped for — it made viewers forget the campy Adam West TV series with its “POW! BAM!” pop-art graphics. It also began the trend of superhero’s outfits being almost totally black with muscles sculpted into the uniform. And in the summer of 1989, it was both a box-office and merchandising powerhouse.

Coate: This year also marks the 75th anniversary of the Batman character, dating back to his first appearance in the comic books. Why has the character endured?

Scivally: Batman has endured for the same reason that Superman, James Bond and Madonna have endured — he keeps being reinvented. Every decade or so, a new generation of writers and artists makes changes to the character or his universe to keep him current and up-to-date. In the 40s, Batman was a much cheerier character, trading quips with Robin while they pummeled the bad guys. In the 50s, the stories moved out of Gotham and into the realms of fantasy or sci-fi, with Batman time-traveling, turning into a baby and being annoyed by the inter-dimensional Batmite, while the Batman family expanded to include Batwoman, Batgirl, and Bat-dog. In 1964, the blocky Bob Kane-inspired artwork gave way to the more rounded lines of Carmine Infantino when the “New Look” Batman (with the bat symbol in a yellow oval) premiered, and the ancillary characters and sci-fi storylines were jettisoned to one again ground Batman in Gotham, facing the classic villains, though the tone was still rather campy and kid-oriented. As the 1970s dawned, writer Denny O’Neil returned Batman to his dark roots, sending a grown-up Robin to college, moving Bruce Wayne out of his mansion and into a penthouse, and making Batman more of an international, 007-type character. In the 1980s, writer/artist Frank Miller debuted The Dark Knight Returns, a Batman story geared for what was fast becoming a more adult comic book market, with the comics themselves now being called “graphic novels.” Miller’s take on the character has endured, reflecting the uncertainty of modern times. But through all of these incarnations, Batman has remained, at his core, a character motivated by revenge, a human impulse so primal that it is at the core of almost every action film ever made.

Coate: What was the objective with your Batman book?

Scivally: When I went around to comic book conventions promoting Superman on Film, Television, Radio and Broadway, people kept asking, “When are you going to write a book about Batman?” I thought it would take about a year to do so, but it was more than two years of research and before I was finally able to complete it. The objective was to chart the evolution of Batman in popular media, with the differences in his portrayals from his first comic book appearances to the serials, his appearances on the Superman radio show, the iconic 1960s TV series (inspired by the “new look” of the Batman comics), the films of the 1980s and 90s (inspired first by Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and then by the studio’s response to the negative reaction of kids creeped out by Batman Returns), and the Christopher Nolan films (which were inspired by the 007 films).

Coate: How is Batman significant within the comic book/superhero genre?

Scivally: Although Batman began as Bob Kane’s idea for riding on the coattails of Superman’s comic book success, as developed by Kane and writer Bill Finger (who is the unsung hero who contributed much to the character but never received the same credit or notoriety as Kane), Batman was a totally different style of hero. Batman didn’t come from another planet or get his powers from a wizard or magic lantern or special ring — he was just a regular guy, albeit an insanely rich one, who developed his mind and body to perfection to fight crime. And, unlike Superman, whose aims were selfless and altruistic and who represents goodness and hope and the best that we have within us, Batman is on a mission of vengeance, avenging the deaths of his parents by punishing all criminals; there’s a darkness and bitterness in his soul that often skates dangerously close to representing the worst of what we have inside us. As I said in the preface to my book, Superman represents who we aspire to be, while Batman represents who we are. Besides that, a hero is only as good as the villains he opposes, and Batman always had the coolest villains, with Dick Tracy a close second.

Coate: Were you a fan of the Batman character prior to seeing the 1989 movie?

Scivally: Honestly, I’ve always been more of a Superman fan, and my brother is more of a Batman fan. But I was about five years old when the Batman TV show premiered in 1966, which is the perfect age for it. For the next couple of years, I was totally enamored of Batman, and when I got a bit older, I began buying the Batman comics (along with all kinds of other comics). This was the early 70s, when Denny O’Neil revamped the character by sending Robin off to college and moving Batman into a penthouse apartment and making him more of an international adventurer — the first attempt at “James Bond-izing” Batman.

Coate: What was your reaction to the first time you saw the 1989 Batman movie?

Scivally: I first saw the movie under special and unusual circumstances. At the time, I was working for a talent agency in Beverly Hills, and when I learned that the premiere was going to be in Westwood, near UCLA, I called up an old friend of mine and we decided to try and “crash” the premiere. So, as soon as we were off work, we went to Westwood and joined the crowds congregating around the theater. The helium balloons from the film’s finale were hovering over the street and there were fans in the crowd in costume as Batman, Robin and the Joker, so there was a festive mood. We saw the limousines drive up and deposit the stars at the red carpet; I remember Jack Nicholson just nodded and waved at the fans and walked on in, but Michael Keaton did a little helicopter spin with his arms out slapping the hands of several fans before he went inside. Then word filtered through the crowd that there would be a second screening after the premiere for all the fans waiting outside, so we waited. Sure enough, when the premiere was over, we were allowed into the theater. As we took our seats, a spotlight shone a Batsignal onto the theater curtain. After everyone was inside, the lights dimmed, the curtains parted, and in a theater where the air was electric with anticipation, the film began. Now, it would be difficult for ANY film to live up to that level of hype, but it started out strongly. When Batman first appeared, floating down in the background as two criminals were talking in the foreground, there was an audible “Oooooh!” in the audience. The following scenes of the Joker’s origin also played well. But as the film went along, I felt the plot kind of went off the rails, and by the time it got to the ending, with the Joker pulling an extremely long-barreled pistol out of his pants and shooting the Batplane out of the sky, I felt it had reached a level of silliness even beyond the campiness of the TV series. So, I left the theater with mixed feelings, a little disappointed. I liked the mood established earlier in the film, but felt that Tim Burton’s penchant for “quirkiness” sabotaged that mood in the final half, too often going for the cheap laugh. And I felt the Joker’s plot wasn’t explained very clearly. In many regards, it was a better film than I had expected, but ultimately it didn’t live up to the promise of its first half.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Michael Keaton’s performance with that of other actors who have portrayed the character of Batman?

Scivally: When Keaton was cast, there was an uproar in the fan community — “Mr. Mom” as Batman? But Tim Burton’s conception was that he wanted an “everyman” in the role, not a square-jawed, muscle-bound bodybuilder type (in Burton’s view, if someone were that great a physical specimen, why would they need the Batsuit?). Burton also felt Bruce Wayne was a little psychotic, and since the cowl would accentuate an actor’s eyes, he wanted an actor whose eyes expressed a restlessness and craziness. Having just worked with Michael Keaton on Beetlejuice, and feeling that Keaton possessed those qualities, he hired him. While I was one of those who looked askance at that choice, when I saw the film I thought he was quite good at contrasting Batman’s vengefulness with Bruce Wayne’s low-key emotional vulnerability and obsessiveness. His Bruce Wayne was even more brooding in Batman Returns. Certainly, his was a more psychologically complex performance than that of Adam West before him, but West’s performance was pitch-perfect for the campy tone of the TV series. As for the actors who came after Keaton, while Val Kilmer and George Clooney had better physiques, their performances lacked Keaton’s depth, though Kilmer was quite good and Clooney had potential but was hampered by an inadequate script. And Christian Bale’s films were a different concept entirely, with more focus on Bruce Wayne and placing Batman in more of a “real world” versus “fantasy world” environment, so his was a different interpretation...with a too-easily-ridiculed gravelly-voiced Batman.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Jack Nicholson’s performance with that of other actors who have portrayed the character of the Joker?

Scivally: Cesar Romero was my first live-action Joker, and I loved his performance, even though you could see his trademark mustache under the white make-up. When Nicholson was cast as the Joker, the consensus in Hollywood was that it was a real coup, and it was in the sense that it lent credibility to the project in the same way that casting Brando in Superman marked that film as a “serious” endeavor. But I feel that Nicholson so often played over-the-top characters that his Joker was little more than The Shining’s Jack Torrance in clownface. It wasn’t so much The Joker we saw on-screen as Jack doing his “Jack” thing. And physically speaking, Nicholson was too pudgy to match the tall, gangly concept of the Joker from the comic books, so while I’ve enjoyed Nicholson in other films, I’m not a huge fan of his Joker. Heath Ledger’s performance was mesmerizing, as a real certifiable nut-job, but while he embodied the spirit of the Joker of the comics, his kinetic, straggly-haired, sweating and swaggering Joker at times came off as a drug addict on a very, very bad trip.

Coate: What did Burton’s Batman do well that previous incarnations, sequels, imitations and reboots have not?

Scivally: Tim Burton’s movies have always been long on style and short on substance, and his Batman films are no exception. The 1989 Batman, with Anton Furst’s production design, did a terrific job of creating an alternate world for Batman to exist within, one that seems slightly futuristic and, at the same time, anachronistic, with the fedora-wearing detectives and mobsters looking like they’ve just stepped out of a 1930s Warner Bros. crime thriller. Coupled with Danny Elfman’s score, the film sets a mood, particularly in the early scenes, of mystery and menace. The sequel was even darker, prompting nightmares in small children that led the studio to insist that the next installments be more kid-friendly, so that we got the silliness of neon-covered machine guns and the Batmobile chasing villains across gigantic statues. When Christopher Nolan rebooted the series with Batman Begins, he sought to situate Batman in the real world, though his “real world” is more like the “five minutes into the future” setting of most 007 films.

Coate: Where does Batman rank among director Tim Burton’s body of work?

Scivally: I would rank Batman highly among Tim Burton films, though it’s one of his least personal works; personally, I think his best film is Edward Scissorhands. But after the low-budget fun of Pee-wee’s Big Adventure and the quirky weirdness of Beetlejuice, Batman proved that Burton could handle a mega-budget film and still give it some of his trademark visual flair, so in that regard it’s the film that legitimized him as a commercial filmmaker in Hollywood.

Coate: What is the legacy of Batman?

Scivally: Along with Superman, Batman is a character who influenced all the comic book heroes who came after him. And perhaps his biggest legacy is that the Batman comics introduced the notion of the kid sidekick, the character who was supposed to be the adolescent reader’s avatar in the comics. But really, didn’t those early comic creators understand that when kids imagine themselves as their favorite comic book characters, they want to be the hero, not the sidekick?

INTERVIEW #2

Jeff Bond is the author of Danse Macabre: 25 Years of Danny Elfman and Tim Burton (included in The Danny Elfman & Tim Burton 25th Anniversary Music Box, Warner Bros., 2011). Jeff currently is the executive editor of Geek Magazine. For several years he covered film music for The Hollywood Reporter and has contributed liner notes to numerous CD soundtrack releases. His other books include The Music of Star Trek (Lone Eagle, 1999) and (with Joe Fordham) the forthcoming Planet of the Apes: The Evolution of the Legendary Franchise (Titan, 2014).

The Bits caught up with Jeff to discuss the impact and appeal of Danny Elfman’s Batman score.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Danny Elfman’s Batman music worth celebrating on the silver anniversary of its release?

Jeff Bond: This is one of the great orchestral film scores of all time, in terms of its impact both in the movie and to the general public. Danny Elfman was basically regarded as an anomaly and just a quirky cartoon/comedy composer until he did Batman—after that he became THE A-list composer of his era and he is still probably the most imitated film composer apart from Bernard Herrmann (who Danny has admittedly imitated many times).

Coate: Burton & Elfman are among the most prolific and celebrated director/composer collaborations the industry has seen. Why are Burton/Elfman a good combination?

Bond: They share a sensibility — at its core Elfman’s music reflects Burton’s vision, which is soulful, eccentric and quirky, playful, and just strange. The music Elfman writes for the Burton films is really straight from Elfman’s personal musical voice — he has the ability to work in many styles and evoke many styles and eras of music, but I think when he writes for Burton he’s just himself, and that evokes Burton’s mentality and his visual world perfectly.

Coate: What are the highlight pieces of music from Elfman’s Batman score?

Bond: Apart from the fantastic opening title music, which immediately heralded Danny Elfman as a major new, “serious” film composer, there are some early action set pieces — the long piece at the factory that ends with the Joker being created, with that wonderful, muscular, repeating figure running all through it, and especially the music for Batman’s drive to the Batcave with Kim Basinger in the car — that Holst/Stravinsky-like choral chanting and the feeling of velocity — Descent into Mystery. Those are both signature, iconic cues that Elfman now plays in his Burton concert suites and they are just incredibly exciting pieces of film music. But I love the whole score — it really creates an incredible world of its own.

Coate: Where does Batman rank among Elfman’s body of work?

Bond: Elfman has said it is still the hardest score he ever had to write — it’s the biggest hurdle he ever jumped in his career. It put him on an entirely new plane, so I think you would have to rank it in the top five pieces of film scoring that Elfman ever did. Certainly it’s one of the scores most embraced by the public.

Coate: Why is Elfman a popular composer?

Bond: He just exploded onto the film scoring scene with a unique, distinctive sound that was both familiar because of what Danny absorbed and worshipped himself from the grand traditions of film scoring, and completely different because of Elfman’s own personality and background. He came from kind of a cross between a rock band background and a theatrical background, and you hear that in his work — the theatricality. He’s a born showman.

Coate: What is the legacy of Elfman’s contribution to Batman?

Bond: You can hear Danny Elfman’s Batman score, to this day, at least in the corners of the comic book film scores being written. For years that sound was THE sound of the comic book movie and it was ripped off by everyone. There had been no model for those kinds of films before that, apart from John Williams’ Superman, which was this very bright, almost patriotic work — so Danny invented the “dark” superhero sound, and we still hear echoes of that to this day.

PRINCIPAL CAST & CREW:

Batman / Bruce Wayne – Michael Keaton

Joker / Jack Napier – Jack Nicholson

Vicki Vale – Kim Basinger

Alexander Knox – Robert Wuhl

Commissioner Gordon – Pat Hingle

Harvey Dent – Billy Dee Williams

Alfred – Michael Gough

Grissom – Jack Palance

Director – Tim Burton

Producers – Jon Peters and Peter Guber

Screenplay – Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren

Story – Sam Hamm

Co-Producer – Chris Kenny

Executive Producers – Benjamin Melniker and Michael E. Uslan

Director of Photography – Roger Pratt, BSC

Production Designer – Anton Furst

Editor – Ray Lovejoy

Songs – Prince

Music – Danny Elfman

Costume Designer – Bob Ringwood (and Linda Henrikson)

Casting – Marion Dougherty

Special Visual Effects – Derek Meddings

Sound Mixer – Tony Dawe

Supervising Sound Editor – Don Sharpe

Re-Recording Mixer – Bill Rowe

Distributor – Warner Bros.

Production Company – Guber-Peters

Release Date – June 23, 1989

Running Time – 126 minutes

Projection Format – 1.85:1 / Dolby Stereo

MPAA Rating – PG-13

SOURCES/REFERENCES:

Numerous newspaper articles, film reviews and theater advertisements; the periodicals The Hollywood Reporter, Newsweek, Time, Variety, and The Wall Street Journal; the website Boxofficemojo, the books Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Bruce Scivally, Henry Gray Publishing, 2011), Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (Sheldon Hall & Steve Neale, Wayne State University Press, 2010), and George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success (Alex Ben Block, editor; George Lucas Books/Harper Collins; 2010); and the motion picture Batman (1989, Warner Bros.).

SPECIAL THANKS:

Jerry Alexander, Claude Ayakawa, Jeff Bond, Raymond Caple, Bill Gabel, Steve Kraus, Bill Kretzel, Mark Lensenmayer, Bruce Scivally, Cliff Stephenson, John Stewart, Vince Young, and a huge thank you to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

It has been a big year for the Man of Steel. The year 2013 marked the 75th anniversary of Superman’s debut (in Action Comics issue #1), a new movie was made starring Henry Cavill and directed by Zack Snyder, and, of course, it represents the 35th anniversary of the release of the classic cinematic adventure starring Christopher Reeve and directed by Richard Donner. The Digital Bits celebrates the occasion with a look back at Superman: The Movie’s opening weekend and features a reflective interview with some Superman authorities. [Read on here...]

THE ORIGINAL ENGAGEMENTS

Today, you’ll believe a man can fly. Nothing you have ever seen or heard, no comic book, television program or motion picture could ever prepare you for this reality. This is a brilliant cast in an unforgettable story. The awesome technology of modern films brings you someone to believe in.

So trumpeted newspapers across the United States and Canada in their splashy advertisements published Friday, December 15, 1978. Superman opened in about 500 theaters and grossed $7.5 million over its inaugural weekend, one of the most successful openings the industry had seen to that point. (Adjusted for inflation, the opening weekend brought in about $27 million.) Ultimately, the movie’s domestic box-office performance topped $130 million (about $475 million adjusted for inflation) during an era when a $100 million gross was impressive and a sign of a genuine blockbuster.

For historical record, to reminisce, and to compare and contrast its launch with that of contemporary event movies, listed below are the North American movie theaters that played Superman during its initial release wave. Hundreds of additional engagements (not listed) commenced in the weeks following the opening.

STATE/PROVINCE

City – chain THEATER NAME (Dolby presentation format, if applicable)

A note about 70-millimeter presentations: For its domestic theatrical release, Warner Bros. struck about two dozen large-format 70mm blow-up prints which featured a special six-track magnetic Dolby stereophonic sound mix. Although they have been cited in the opening-weekend list below, the majority of these deluxe prints were actually completed too late by the film lab to be delivered to their respective theaters in time for opening weekend.

THE INTERVIEW

Mike Matessino is a Soundtrack Producer and Film Music Preservationist. He was involved with the Superman soundtrack CDs released in 2000 and 2008. Other soundtrack projects have included Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Poltergeist, 1941, The Star Wars Trilogy, and many others. While with Sharpline Arts he produced numerous documentaries and supplemental material for LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc releases, including Alien, The Sound of Music, and The Thing.

Bruce Scivally is the author of Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006). He has also written Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011) and (with John Cork) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He also has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He teaches screenwriting, film production and cinema history and theory at the Illinois Institute of Art-Chicago and Columbia College.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Superman worthy of celebration on its 35th anniversary?

Mike Matessino: Superman remains a great, groundbreaking movie that is highly entertaining and beautifully made. It’s a true classic. This anniversary also aligns with the 75th anniversary of the character and next year is the centennial of Superman’s creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. The 1978 movie falls right in the middle of the character’s history and crystallizes, if you’ll pardon the pun, all of his mythology.

Bruce Scivally: It seems that when you go to the multiplexes now, half the movies in theaters, and certainly the highest-grossers, are films based on comic books. That is a phenomenon that began with Richard Donner’s Superman. Before 1978, there was a general consensus that – with movie serials having died out in the 1950s – the place for superheroes was television. This was cemented by the success of the Superman TV series in the 1950s, and Batman in the late 1960s. In the 1970s, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man and The Hulk came to prime-time TV, and there were TV-movie pilots for other heroes, like Captain America and Doctor Strange. Plus, a live-action Captain Marvel had a successful run on Saturday mornings. So when Ilya Salkind proposed the idea of Superman as a big-budget, star-studded feature film, it was – at the time – a very radical idea. And I truly believe that if Superman had failed at the box-office, we wouldn’t have all the Marvel and DC Comics-inspired films flooding theaters now.

Coate: How is Superman significant within the comic book/superhero film genres?

Matessino: Obviously Superman: The Movie is the template for every comic book superhero movie that followed. Prior to that, what immediately came to people’s minds was the 1960s Batman TV series. The 1978 film walked a fine line, incorporating just enough campy humor but treating the character seriously and depicting the world as a real one.

Scivally: Superman took a comic book subject and treated it with respect. After the campy 1960s Batman, that was a big deal. But, as creative consultant Tom Mankiewicz once said to me, the safe and easy way to do a superhero movie is to stand outside of it and make fun of it. What is more difficult – and more interesting – is to get inside the material and treat it with respect. While he was rewriting Superman for Richard Donner, the watchword was “verisimilitude” – they had to make it seem like it could actually happen. This was later reflected in the ad-line for the movie: “You’ll believe a man can fly.”

Coate: Were you a fan of the Superman character prior to seeing the 1978 movie?

Matessino: I wasn’t a comic book reader as a kid, but the George Reeves TV series was re-run in syndication constantly and the character also appeared on Saturday morning cartoons at the time, and I was a faithful watcher of both.

Scivally: Some of my earliest memories are of watching George Reeves in reruns of The Adventures of Superman. From as far back as I can remember, I was captivated by Superman. I think the character has enormous appeal for children, because when you are small and powerless, the ultimate fantasy is to be bigger and stronger, if not smarter, than everyone else. Throw in flying and bullets bouncing off your chest, and that’s just way cool.

Coate: Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw the 1978 Superman movie?

Matessino: I loved the movie immediately and what I associate with my overall “reaction” is the beginning of the picture… the opening of a curtain, the black-and-white comic book prologue, and then the incredible impact when the screen widens, the colorful animated credits fly past you and John Williams’ theme starts thundering in Dolby Stereo. It was so theatrical and it felt that this is what going to the movies was all about.

Scivally: I wish I could say I was ecstatic, but it’s a little more complicated than that. From the time I first heard about the film, I followed its progress through magazines like Starlog and Fantastic Films and little blurbs in the entertainment columns of newspapers. There were rumors that the producers were pulling out all the stops and had developed a new kind of 3-D system that would make it seem like Superman was flying right out of the screen. By the time I got to the theater – and I went with a group of my high school friends – I was so filled with the hype that there was no way ANY movie could live up to it, so it was a bit of a disappointment. I also wasn’t bowled over by Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, or the overall campy tone of the modern-day Metropolis scenes. Having gotten over that initial letdown, however, the film really grew on me in subsequent viewings, and now when I watch it I feel it’s just about perfect. One of the things that experience taught me, however, is to avoid, as much as possible, all hype for a movie until I’ve seen it.

Coate: Compare and contrast Christopher Reeve's performance with that of other actors who have portrayed the character of Superman. Was Christopher Reeve the best Superman?

Matessino: I think all of the actors who’ve portrayed Superman over the years were well chosen in the sense that each had an instinct about what the character meant for the time in which each played the role. Christopher Reeve was the first one to plausibly deal with the conceit of why no one could recognize that Clark Kent was Superman with glasses on. He played Clark exactly like what he would really be… a farm boy totally overwhelmed by the big city. It didn’t feel like something he was doing just to conceal his identity. It therefore felt relatable. It tapped into that sense we all have that there is an ideal, confident, balanced person inside each of us.

Scivally: Looking at the actors who have portrayed Superman on film and TV, Kirk Alyn was pretty much a stock serial hero, without a lot of shadings to his portrayal – but then the serials never had characters who were more than one or two-dimensional. George Reeves gave two performances as Superman. In the first couple of seasons, his Superman is a tough crime-fighter. In the later seasons – the ones made after Dr. Frederick Wertham’s notorious attack on comic books – he’s a much jollier, affable Superman. His portrayal of Clark Kent softened as well, though there was never much differentiation between his Kent and his Superman; his early Kent was a tough, no-nonsense reporter who would have been at home in a Humphrey Bogart crime thriller. Looking back at the shows now, George Reeves’ Superman is like a surrogate parent, with Lois and Jimmy his children that he has to keep in check and keep rescuing from trouble. It was a pretty innocent portrayal for a much more innocent time. There wouldn’t be another major live-action portrayal (outside of TV commercials) until Christopher Reeve twenty years later. By that time, the country had experienced the Vietnam War and Watergate, so the wide-eyed innocent approach wouldn’t have resonated with a much more cynical, jaded era. Consequently, Christopher Reeve – under Donner’s direction – gave more shadings to Clark Kent and Superman. For the first time, audiences could see a hint of sadness and loneliness in the character, and Reeve made a much greater effort to play Kent and Superman as different individuals, which helps sell the illusion that Lois Lane wouldn’t be able to see past the whole eyeglasses-as-disguise bit. While his Superman is a confident charmer, his Clark Kent is a shy, bumbling Jimmy Stewart type. Or, as Reeve put it, his Kent is a put-on, a reflection of the way the alien Kal-El (Superman) sees us.

Coate: Between the original theatrical release, television broadcasts and the numerous home-video releases of Superman, which cut/version do you feel is the best?

Matessino: I think that the original theatrical release – with its original sound mix only – is nearly perfect. The extended TV cut is interesting because we get to see what else was shot and it serves its own purpose, but I think all the right editorial decisions were made in creating the theatrical cut. The one piece of added footage I wish they’d kept is the one that shows Superman’s attempt to catch the eastbound missile head on, only to establish that its avoidance system prevents him from doing so. The movie establishes that Metropolis is basically New York with a name change, and therefore the geography is unclear when Superman leaves Metropolis and ends up BEHIND the eastbound missile. They may have cut that material because the visual effect was unsatisfactory, but it also unfortunately necessitated the abrupt cutting of the music score there.

Scivally: I’m always a fan of sticking to the original presentation, so I prefer the original theatrical cut. The same goes for Superman II – despite the much-heralded Donner Cut, I still feel the original Donner/Lester hybrid is superior.

Coate: How significant is John Wiliams' score?

Matessino: The importance of the music cannot be understated. I’ve said this before, but the genius of this work is that Williams didn’t just score the movie at hand, he scored the entire Superman myth. His main theme can be applied to every incarnation of the character that preceded it, and it kept getting used through the ’80s and on into Superman Returns and even Smallville. You listen to the score and you get the whole Superman story… Krypton, Smallville, Metropolis, his relationship with Lois Lane, villains, and heroic action. The score itself communicates all the basics of the story.

Scivally: How significant is John Williams’ score? That’s like asking, how significant is oxygen? John Williams is a certifiable genius, whose music has lifted many a movie into a higher realm. His Superman Theme captures the essence of the character beautifully, and the rest of the score – even Margot Kidder’s awkward spoken word love poem – is outstanding.

Coate: Where does the Superman score rank among John Williams' body of work?

Matessino: Superman is certainly one of John Williams’ most indelible works. Obviously the main theme is masterful, but so is the love theme. It’s romantic but very modern, very cosmopolitan. His choices for scoring the Krypton and Smallville sequences are incredibly sensitive and on target. The score came in the midst of a very prolific period that included the original Star Wars trilogy and his first projects with Steven Spielberg, and Superman certainly stands equally among them. It remains one of my favorites of his entire body of work.

Scivally: It’s in my Top Three, along with Star Wars and Dracula (1979).

Coate: There have been numerous Superman soundtrack albums released. What are the pros and cons of each release?

Matessino: All the releases have merit. In 1978 we originally got a very generous double LP set, but which still left off some of the major pieces of the score, notably the music for Superman’s first appearance when he rescues Lois from the crashed helicopter. When that album came out on CD, two tracks were dropped on the U.S. version, so it was necessary to track down the Japanese release to get the complete album. In the late ‘90s the score was re-recorded, so it was great to have another take on it, and shortly after that came the Rhino 2-CD set that I worked on, which featured a lot of music that had not been previously released. I later got to revisit the material in 2007, which was after new source elements turned up. That came out as part of a box set which did very well and is the best sounding version of the original film’s score.

Coate: Superman was made in a mixture of styles and tone, particularly with respect to the direction, acting and cinematography. Is this an asset or detriment to the overall effectiveness of the movie?

Matessino: It works for me because that’s the character’s experience. We’re introduced to his place of origin, a truly alien world and then his life experience, which is rural Americana and then the world’s biggest, most bustling city. This is contrasted by the villain Lex Luthor, who is arrogant and feels in control of that world. The changes in tone and photographic approach reflect this. Life changes its look and its tone, after all. It made the movie feel more real and relatable.

Scivally: Despite the reservations I had on first seeing it, I can now appreciate the way the movie switches tones from the Krypton scenes to the Smallville scenes to the Metropolis scenes. If they had kept up the solemnity of the Krypton scenes throughout, the movie might have ended up being overly dark, as I feel today’s modern superhero movies are. And especially with Superman, who is a character who represents light and goodness and the best qualities we have inside us, audiences should be able to have some fun in the theater. Batman – that’s a different story.

Coate: This movie was made during an era where there were very few movies of its type being made. These days, it seems every other week a new superhero or comic book-inspired movie is released. What did Donner's Superman do well that its previous incarnations, sequels, imitators and reboots have not?

Matessino: For me, what Donner’s film did is reach beyond non-comic book readers to all potential viewers, young and old, and to everyone who enjoyed going to the movies. It didn’t require you to have any experience with the character prior to that. The other thing it did, rather boldly, was set it in the real world of the late 1970s. It was not really stylized in any way. What they shot on the streets of New York felt like the exact same city as Taxi Driver. The movie’s famous tagline was “You’ll believe a man can fly” and it delivered that not only through its groundbreaking effects but by placing Superman in a world that was familiar and that felt very real. Some of the latter day entries in the genre do this in their own way, but for me nothing comes close to the sense of realism that the first Superman achieved. Think about how hard it is to pull off a character in a costume like that and have an audience accept it. You can either make the world completely fantastic and stylized so that he doesn’t stand out…or you can do the tough work of figuring out how to get the script, the cast, the look and the tone exactly right so that this character can speak to a pimp before he stops a falling helicopter, and then crowds in the street applaud the arrival of a true hero.

Scivally: As I said earlier, Donner’s Superman was the first superhero movie to be made like a serious Hollywood epic. Prior to the late 1970s, if you set out to make a superhero film, it would be considered a “B” movie – at best – and be done with a small budget, like Warner Bros.’ previous Doc Savage film. Superman was a game changer. After Superman, studios realized that if they took these films seriously, so would audiences, and the box-office rewards could be astronomical. As a result, by the 1990s, there had been a flip-flop in film budgeting. Movies that – in the early 70s – would have been considered “B” films were now “A” films with “A” budgets, and films that would have been considered “A” movies were now being done as “B” films with smaller budgets, if at all. In terms of other Superman films, what Donner – and Tom Mankiewicz – got right is that Superman is, at heart, an innocent with super powers. Superman Returns and Man of Steel, in my estimation, were misfires, trying too hard to give a dark inner turmoil to the character. He ain’t Batman, but since The Dark Knight was, for a while, the second highest-grossing film in history, moviemakers keep trying to turn him into a conflicted Batman-type character.

Coate: Where does Superman rank among director Richard Donner's body of work?

Matessino: Donner would be lauded for the film even if he had not directed any others. But certainly it’s one of several for which he will be remembered along with The Omen, The Goonies and Lethal Weapon. He was obviously the perfect director for Superman and I think its success played a role in the longevity of the character.

Scivally: When I think of Richard Donner, three films immediately come to mind: The Omen, Superman and Lethal Weapon. For me, Superman is his best film.

Coate: Mike, what was the objective with the Superman CD soundtrack projects?

Matessino: The Rhino release came at a time when that label was putting out their own releases of scores that had pop culture impact. The goal with that release was to include as much previously unreleased music as we could find at the time. On the Film Score Monthly box set, we wanted to create a definitive collection of music from the four films featuring Christopher Reeve. The inclusion of Ron Jones’ music from the 1988 animated series (which used John Williams’ theme) turned it into an 8-disc set that encompassed a full decade of music for the character. The complete scores for Superman IIandSuperman III were part of it along with the first ever release of music for Superman IV, which was itself quite a revelation, a really epic work done by longtime Williams friend and collaborator Alexander Courage. The whole thing was a very satisfying project to work on and one of which I’m very proud.

Coate: Bruce, what was the objective with your Superman book?

Scivally: I wrote Superman on Film, Television, Radio and Broadway basically because I wanted an excuse to immerse myself in researching Superman on film and TV. In this instance, “researching” means watching all of the movies and TV shows again, which was a joy for me. But as I watched them, I began to see that each generation has its own interpretation of Superman, so in writing the book I tried to place the TV shows and films in a cultural context, while also cramming in as much detail as possible about the behind-the-scenes decisions that went into the making of them. And, at the time I began writing, there hadn’t yet been a book that looked at the totality of Superman in popular culture; there were books on the George Reeves series, and Kirk Alyn’s biography, and books about the Broadway show and the “lost” pilots for Superboy and Superpup, but there wasn’t a book that covered all of it in one volume. I’d like to revisit it in a couple of years, to write about the Superman films and TV incarnations that have come along since 2006.

Coate: What is the legacy of Superman, the character in general and the 1978 movie in particular?

Matessino: Superman is the ultimate immigrant story. When Superman flies over the Earth at the end of the picture, with that grand score playing, it's the character now claiming this place as his home. He has become fully part of a place that was originally foreign to him and has figured out his place in it. Of course it has overtones of the stories of Moses and Jesus and so it is overflowing with mythic resonance. All of that comes out in the 1978 film without it feeling heavy handed. It came out at the perfect time because prior to that things were campier and in later decades we moved toward making things darker and more complex. In the 1970s movies felt very real and yet it was acceptable at the time to put the tongue into the cheek here and there and have a little fun with it. But underneath it all is a basic story that we can all relate to that has to do with wondering about our origins, looking at our formative experiences, and figuring out a way to let the selfless, heroic part of ourselves express itself in our lives. If you had to pick one incarnation of Superman where all of this is codified definitively, it’s Superman: The Movie.

Scivally: As a character, Superman is a symbol of what is best about human character; he really does represent truth and justice, and at one time – when the phrase had only positive connotations – the American Way. Superman – the movie – was a major game-changer in Hollywood. And I do believe Ilya Salkind, its producer, should get credit for seeing that a comic book character, treated with respect, can connect with a mass audience. Had he not had that vision and pursued it, we wouldn’t have any of the superhero movies we have today; they’d still be “TV material.”

SOURCES/REFERENCES:

The information contained in this article was principally referenced from newspaper and film industry trade publications, reviews and theater advertisements.

Let us continue the James Bond 50th anniversary celebration, shall we? Last autumn, around the time Skyfall was being released to theaters, the Blu-ray set was hitting retailers and the anniversary hype was in high gear, I had this idea that it might be interesting if I could round up a few of my James Bond historian friends, turn on a recorder… and talk James Bond, and then perhaps turn that into an article. It didn’t happen (primarily for logistical reasons). But a few months later the next best thing did happen. That is, separately-conducted interviews that have been edited into a round-table format.

In the information age it seems everyone is an expert. There are millions of fans of the James Bond movie series and quite a few of them no doubt are an expert on all matters related to the series. In my view, though, the real experts – the best of the best – are the ones that have taken their passion and knowledge of all things James Bond to the next level and have succeeded in writing books on the subject (and in some cases producing documentary films). As such, I thought it would be an interesting experiment to ask a handful of these experts the same set of questions pertaining to the subject of the James Bond movies and why the series has endured. Interviewed for this article were Jon Burlingame, John Cork, Bill Desowitz, Paul Duncan, Charles Helfenstein, Mark O’Connell, Lee Pfeiffer, Steven Jay Rubin, Bruce Scivally and Dave Worrall.

First, some introductions that establish the credentials of the participants.

Jon Burlingame is the author of The Music of James Bond (Oxford University Press, 2012). He also authored Sound and Vision: 60 Years of Motion Picture Soundtracks (Watson-Guptill, 2000) and TV’s Biggest Hits: The Story of Television Themes From Dragnet to Friends (Schirmer, 1996). He writes regularly for the show-biz trade Variety and has also been published in The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He started writing about spy music for the 1970s fanzine File Forty and has since produced seven CDs of original music from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. for the Film Score Monthly label.

John Cork is the author (with Bruce Scivally) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He also wrote (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Commancheros, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek.

Bill Desowitz authored James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies (www.billdesowitz.com), a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Paul Duncan is the editor of The James Bond Archives (Taschen, 2012). He has edited over fifty film books for Taschen, and is currently preparing The Charlie Chaplin Archives for release in 2014.

Charles Helfenstein is the author of The Making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Spies, 2009) and The Making of The Living Daylights (Spies, 2012).

Mark O’Connell is the author of Catching Bullets: Memoirs of a Bond Fan (Splendid Books, 2012).

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). He is the founder (with Dave Worrall) of Cinema Retro magazine.

Steven Jay Rubin is the author of The James Bond Films: A Behind-the-Scenes History (Random House, 1981) and The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia (McGraw-Hill, 2002). He also wrote Combat Films: American Realism, 1945-2010 (McFarland, 2011) and has written for Cinefantastique magazine.

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006) and Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011). He teaches screenwriting, film production and cinema history and theory at the Illinois Institute of Art-Chicago and Columbia College.

Dave Worrall is the author (with Lee Pfeiffer) of The Essential Bond (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999) and is the publisher of The James Bond Collector’s Club magazine. He also wrote (with Lee Pfeiffer) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). He is the founder (with Lee Pfeiffer) of Cinema Retro magazine.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest you begin playing your favorite 007 soundtrack album and prepare a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course), and then enjoy this conversation with some of the world’s foremost experts on all things James Bond…

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): Why is the 50th anniversary of the James Bond movie series worthy of celebration?

Jon Burlingame: There have been plenty of character and story franchises throughout film history, but none that have lasted as long (especially under a single aegis) or proven as resilient as James Bond. He emerged as a Cold War hero and has managed to change with the times, both in terms of geopolitical background and filmmaking trends.

John Cork: First off, we got a great Bond film for the anniversary! Second, because Bond makes us happy. He still represents everything we aspire to in so many ways – some level of invincibility, some form of the love we have for the very British combination of adventure, dry humor and good taste. We celebrate them because, for better or worse, they changed the film industry. And, finally, the anniversary gave us some wonderful examinations of the series in book form – Charles Helfenstein’s wonderful look at the mid-way Bond, The Living Daylights; Bill Desowitz’s unique view of Bond through the eyes of the actors who played 007; Jon Burlingame’s vibrant history of the music of 007, a book only he could have written; and Paul Duncan’s official archive work that is really quite spectacular.

Bill Desowitz: It’s the longest-running franchise and a cultural legacy about power and strength and survival that continues to have an impact. And it’s a testament to survival and durability and lasting appeal. In an era where so much is disposable and so little consensus, Bond continues to be there for us as cinematic comfort food, as a tradition that gets passed down from family to family, from generation to generation, particularly from father to son. It was a thrill taking my two sons to see their first Bond in a theater (Quantum of Solace), and they eagerly awaited Skyfall. They also enjoyed seeing some of the earlier movies in a theater during the 50th anniversary celebration last year.

Paul Duncan: As far as I am aware, this is the only film series to last fifty years. Not only has it lasted, it has thrived, developed, and regenerated itself, creating the template for the modern action film. It has given so much pleasure to so many people around the world, that it seems appropriate to celebrate the achievement.

Charles Helfenstein: It’s a celebration of quality from start to finish – from Ian Fleming’s superb research, action packed but elegant writing to the Broccoli mantra of putting every dollar on the screen. While the series has had some dips in the road, it is a remarkable fifty-year streak of compelling entertainment.

Mark O’Connell: Because half a century in any industry is an achievement. And it is half a century that has been marked with success, creative savvy and industry fortitude as the good ship 007 navigates through evolving studio and box office pressures. Despite its global reach, the Bond franchise is still run by the smallest corner shop in an age of corporate superstores. The industry of Bond – the employment, merchandise, tourism, the artistry, what it represents for cinema owners the world over – is a crucial cog in the history of popular culture.

Lee Pfeiffer: There is no other film series that comes close to surviving fifty years. There have been characters like Batman and Superman that have been in films for decades before Bond, but these were not consistently done by the same production company. What makes the Bonds unique is that Eon Productions has been behind every one of the “official” 007 films. The series has thrived through decades, despite the public’s fickle behavior towards pop culture icons. Every time the series seems to be running out of steam, the producers find a way to reinvigorate. It’s quite remarkable, really.

Steven Jay Rubin: In the case of the James Bond films, celebrating a 50th anniversary is a huge toast to the consistent quality, popularity and historical significance of the series. For over fifty years, the Broccoli family has provided a motion picture product that has enthralled generations of moviegoers, never alienating the family adventure audience that has been its stock in trade. The films can be violent and sexy, but the producers have never crossed the line, providing the closest thing we have today to a stamped guarantee of entertainment for the entire family.

Bruce Scivally: Never in the history of cinema has there been another series that has remained vital for so long and has been produced by the same family. The first Tarzan movie was released in 1918, and Tarzan movies are still being produced, but the films are not part of one unbroken series from the same producer. The same goes for Sherlock Holmes. James Bond, however, has been on cinema screens since 1962, and all of the films have been produced or executive produced by Albert R. Broccoli, his stepson Michael G. Wilson or his daughter Barbara Broccoli.

Dave Worrall: Any institution that relies on commercialism and has proved to be successful and profitable is worthy of celebrating. In the film industry even more so, as fads generally burn themselves out. It’s a great achievement.

Coate: To what do you attribute the enduring appeal of the series?

Burlingame: During its first fifteen years the films were made by Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, who – against the odds – kept making movies (with three different actors playing 007) that people wanted to see, continually upping the action and outrageousness quotient. In subsequent years, with Broccoli alone in charge, Bond remained popular (and that continues today with Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli in charge). The character is in many ways a hero for the ages, as someone who battles evil on behalf of all of us; accomplishes feats that the average guy wishes he could; and is as attractive to women as he is admirable to men. That’s a movie hero any producer would wish for. And by watching and employing what’s working in other successful action films, Bond filmmakers have also managed to stay current while keeping their own very specific approach.

Cork: Style. Bond films almost always feel different, but not like, say, an IronMan film, where one has no foot in reality. Bond’s world isn’t the world as it is; it is the world as we would like to imagine it.

Desowitz: Bond’s power and freedom are very thrilling and sexy, and are underscored by the iconic elements of the franchise. It’s also comforting to have a world savior protecting us while at the same time rebelling against the very authority that sanctions him with a license to kill. As Pierce Brosnan told me, “...he remains somewhat timeless, somewhat trapped within a period of time as well.” And the producers have managed to find actors to convey different personalities in keeping with the times. Today, Daniel Craig is very much a post-9/11 Bond reaching back to the angst of the Fleming books.

Duncan: I think the enduring longevity of James Bond is a tribute to the good business practices and artistic sensitivities of the producers. Harry Saltzman and Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli began the series with Dr. No in 1962, Cubby continued on his own from The Spy Who loved Me, then with his stepson Michael G. Wilson, and finally Michael and Cubby’s daughter, Barbara Broccoli, evolved the series from GoldenEye onwards to the latest film Skyfall. Not only do they put all the money up on the screen, but they are smart enough to give the directors, actors, production designers, special effects supervisors, and stunt people the creative freedom to experiment and try new things so that they produce their best work for the movies. The result is that these four producers have an incredible track record that no other production company can match – twenty-three films over fifty years and every one of them made a profit, because every one of them entertained a worldwide audience. Over the years, the series has been “rebooted” as a new actor takes over the role of Bond, or because of changes in the market, but the cinema Bond always remains very close to Ian Fleming’s depiction of Bond in the novels. This is the secret of the franchise’s success – you don’t mess with a proven formula. I think this is also the reason why Daniel Craig’s interpretation of Bond has been so successful – he is probably closer to Fleming’s Bond, and Connery’s original interpretation, than any of the other actors who have played the role.

Helfenstein: James Bond is an aspirational character, the ultimate male fantasy. We want to own the coolest gadgets, vanquish the evil doers, wear the most stylish clothes, thwart death with aplomb, and make love to the most beautiful women. The Bond films let us do that.

O’Connell: Quality. Integrity. Style. And then some more integrity for good measure.

Pfeiffer: The producers always seem to find the right Bond for the right era. It’s inconceivable that audiences today would accept Roger Moore’s overtly humorous interpretation of the role, but it’s just as valid to say that Daniel Craig would have been considered far too somber for audiences in the 70s and 80s. There is also a first class, larger-than-life feel to all of the Bond movies, even the weakest entries.

Rubin: Brand recognition combined with consistent quality equals enduring appeal. We have few guarantees in our movie choices and most of those are short-lived. People will stick with a quality product, just like they’ll stick with their favorite radio station, steak house, liquor of choice and route to work. We want comfort in selection and the Bond films do that more effectively each year. The fact that grandparents can share their love of a character with grandchildren also doesn’t hurt. After fifty years, the Bond movies have a terrific following. Who hasn’t seen at least one Bond movie?

Scivally: The 007 films combine the classic appeal of hero epics in the St. George and the Dragon mode with the tough, cynical anti-heroes of American noir fiction, like Mike Hammer. When the films came along, they added humor to the mix, plus a kind of transparent consumerism and embracing of technology that made the films seem very modern.

Worrall: Initially, pure guaranteed entertainment of the highest order. The audience have never been short-changed, and the producers have worked hard to up the ante every time.

Coate: If Ian Fleming or Albert Broccoli were alive today, how do you think they would feel about how the series has played out?

Burlingame: Fleming was a practical man and I suspect that, while he might have distanced himself from the increasingly outrageous storylines and “superman” aspects of the Bond persona of the 1970s and beyond, he would have seen the films as a financial boon and a constant source of new readers for the old books. I have no doubt that Broccoli would be very pleased with how his children have handled the Bond cinema legacy; they have taken what is essentially a family business and continued to thrive well into the 21st century. Bravo to them.

Cork: I think Ian would have been mortified by the Bond of the 70s and 80s, resigned to the Bond of the 90s and eternally grateful for the Bond of Daniel Craig. That’s my perception of Fleming’s feelings. Personally, had the 70s and 80s tried to play Bond as the same character in From Russia With Love, the series wouldn’t have lasted. I was fortunate to have known Cubby a bit, not closely, but honored to have conversations with him about Bond. He would be over the moon, but not about the content of the films. He would have been so honored and proud that Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have carried on his legacy and made it their own. They didn’t screw it up, and that would have meant the world to him.

Desowitz: I think Fleming would be pleased that Bond has returned to the conflicted spy of his books; Broccoli would be proud that his children have found great success and prestige with their own Bond suited to the times. By the way, Harry Saltzman would be proud as well because the serious touch is in keeping with the dramatic side that appealed to him as a producer. There’s a kitchen sink element to Craig’s Bond that harkens back to Saltzman’s signature.

Duncan: Ian Fleming would have been happy to see that the character he created, which in no small part was based on himself, had been so successful and so universally recognized throughout the world. It would be interesting to speculate about his role in the development of the character – because surely he would have continued writing Bond – and his input into the film plots and screenplays, but I think ultimately he would be pleased to allow Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman to continue making the films as they saw fit. Albert Broccoli were keenly aware of the audience, and the global reach of the films, so would have been proud of the way that his stepson and daughter have continued his legacy, by developing the character of Bond, and finding new markets for the films.

Helfenstein: I think both men would be immensely proud of their legacy. Ian for the fact that his character has become not just a phenomenon but a cultural touchstone, a synonym for cool and high tech. Cubby for the fact that his children have taken his production company and the Bond series to even greater heights.

O’Connell: I think Cubby would be most proud of the efforts of his children and the wider creative Eon family. I am so glad he got to see the revival of the series with GoldenEye as well as the suggestion of a new momentum to the series when Tomorrow Never Dies was in its early stages. The now oft-overlooked importance of instinct is all over the Daniel Craig films. That was something Cubby nurtured in the Bond family. There is a determination to get these films right – from the admin staff via the studio technicians up to the director. Of course, Fleming would not have recognized how the films evolved, yet the legacy of his creation – the fresh canvas it allows each new film – is testament to the baton of character and storytelling Broccoli, Saltzman and their colleagues then ran with.

Pfeiffer: I would think Fleming would have been appalled by most of the films that came out after his death in 1964 because of the increasing emphasis on hardware and gadgets. However, Cubby would have been over the moon. Back in 1994, most of the pundits thought reviving Bond for GoldenEye was absurd in the post-Cold War era. But Cubby told me he felt it was time to turn the franchise over to “the kids,” Barbara and Michael. He had full confidence they could make Bond relevant again. Although he was very ill, he did have the satisfaction of seeing his prediction come true. I think he would be overjoyed at seeing how popular Bond is with the younger audiences. This man lived and breathed 007 and was always eager to talk about the series.

Rubin: Ian Fleming would be absolutely stunned that the series has lasted this long, after all his book titles ran out in the 70s. He would be happy for his heirs, but seriously surprised that Bond could endure. Cubby wouldn’t be surprised, because he knew how the business worked. Give the public what they want, and they’ll keep coming. He would be very happy with Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson’s stewardship. Come to think of it, if he took a look at the price tag, he would be stunned, as would most producers from his era. Hard to believe that a film like Dr. No cost $1 million, the price of craft service and lunch on the last film.

Scivally: Almost immediately after creating 007, Ian Fleming set about trying to interest producers in bringing James Bond to movies or TV. I believe he would be delighted that the film series has carried on for so long, and kept interest in his original novels alive. And I’m sure Broccoli would be very proud that, under the stewardship of Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the series has not only continued but thrived.

Worrall: I think Fleming would be amused, and Cubby very proud.

Coate: Which was the first James Bond movie you saw and what was it about it or subsequent films that made you a fan?

Burlingame: I saw Thunderball and You Only Live Twice at a drive-in, and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service in a theater, in the late 1960s. I was hooked on the music even before seeing the films, however, as the title songs were playing on the radio and I was already a fan of composer John Barry. I bought the On Her Majesty’s Secret Service album immediately and the other Bond soundtracks soon after. Plus, I had been a spy-TV fan from 1964, having watched and adored The Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the very beginning, so I was primed for the big-screen experience fairly early.

Cork: The first film I have any memory of seeing in any movie theater anywhere was From Russia With Love. I was three. I didn’t become a real fan until I saw Live and Let Die when I was eleven.

Desowitz: I remember my parents taking me to see Goldfinger in ‘65 in the [San Fernando] Valley and it was one of my most memorable childhood filmgoing experiences. I found it uniquely fun and exciting. I even whispered that Bond should grab the cable during his fight with Oddjob. That same year I caught up with Dr. No and From Russia With Love at a drive-in double-bill. I was pretty much hooked.

Duncan: My first Bond film was Sean Connery’s Diamonds are Forever whilst on holiday in Ilfracombe in Devon. I got the Corgi Aston Martin DB5 as a present for my birthday, and then my dad took me to see a double bill of Thunderball and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. I loved the cars, the stunts, the exotic locations, but most of all I loved the confidence and humor of James Bond. As I grew older, from The Spy Who Loved Me onwards, I made sure that I saw the films when they were released. As each new actor was introduced as Bond, it seemed to rejuvenate the character, and the series.

Helfenstein: My first memories of Bond films were from watching them on TV, sadly the butchered ABC versions. But I was hooked. The first Bond film I saw in the theater was Moonraker. While its fidelity to Fleming’s work is, shall we say, lacking, it is still an entertaining film, and quite a thrill for a nine-year-old. I wanted his wrist dart gun SOOO badly!

O’Connell: On one of our Divorced Parent Sundays my Dad took a very reluctant me to the Guildford Odeon to see Octopussy upon release. But I wanted to see Return of the Jedi again and had quite an anti-Bond tantrum in the cinema’s foyer and got wedged in the turnstiles trying to push my way out. But Dad quite rightly stood his parental ground – something which made absolute sense in the months and years that followed. As Cubby Broccoli’s sex and sari actioner unfurled before me I became instantly infatuated with Bond. All the facets that some sniffy fans dismiss – the tuk-tuk chase, the gymnastic assault, the crocodile and fold-up jet – were perfect filmic fodder to get a seven year old hooked on a series. It was not long after I fully fathomed that my grandfather Jimmy had worked with Cubby Broccoli and the Eon family for years. I was then drip-fed nuggets of news, posters and merchandise from A View to a Kill which ramped up my anticipation. It was – and still is – the traditions of a Bond film’s genesis that reminds me why I am a fan. The announcement of a title, the first poster, the first photograph, the first play of the song… the Bond machine has rarely changed in how it fanfares itself. And Skyfall was such a reminder of the global pull and weight of a new Bond film. What other series of films makes BBC News headlines with the launch of a title song or first trailer?!

Pfeiffer: The first Bond movie I saw was From Russia With Love in 1963. I didn’t want to see it; I thought it was a love story. As an eight-year-old boy, I was only interested in the second feature, Twice Told Tales starring Vincent Price, who I always admired. By the time Bond unspooled, I was hooked and very frustrated when I found out there had been an earlier 007 movie that I didn’t see. I finally caught Dr. No when it was released in ‘65 as part of a double feature.

Rubin: I saw Goldfinger at Christmas 1964 after reading the book – a time when I first started to see movies based on books I read. At that time, those little colorful Signet paperbacks were on everybody’s desk in my junior high. Goldfinger was just the coolest movie to see and it delivered big time. Sean Connery was terrific with those throwaway lines, Shirley Eaton and Honor Blackman were sexy as hell, and Goldfinger himself was a bigger than life villain with a totally wicked henchman in Oddjob. Plus the car, oh yeah, the car.

Scivally: The first 007 film I saw was Goldfinger, which I watched on television. Bond’s cool, his way with women, and his Aston Martin made an indelible impression, especially since I was just entering puberty and Bond is the ultimate male power fantasy figure.

Worrall:Goldfinger. It was the sense of the fantastic made to feel as though it was realistic. Never once, when I watched You Only Live Twice for the first time did I feel as though the plot was outlandish. It was played seriously and meant to be plausible. Today, of course, it would be classed as over the top.

Coate: What compelled you to write your 007 books?

Burlingame: The one aspect of Bond that has never been properly, or thoroughly, chronicled was the creation of the songs and scores that made such an indelible contribution to the series. I knew all of the composers and many of the songwriters, having written about film music for over twenty-five years, and the 50th anniversary of the franchise seemed like the right time to tackle the subject.

Cork: I was very fortunate. I got a call asking me if I would be interested. Working with Bruce Scivally, Maryam d’Abo and Collin Stutz on the books I worked on made the jobs all much more enjoyable!

Desowitz: I had the unique opportunity to interview all six Bond actors, beginning with Brosnan for a piece about The World is Not Enough, paired with Michael Apted. For the 40th, Variety assigned me to interview other actors, so with a lot of patience and persistence, I snagged Sean Connery by phone on the set of his last film, The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, which is the last in-depth interview he’s granted about Bond. After that, nothing stopped me from getting George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton, and Roger Moore, as well as more time with Brosnan at the Die Another Day junket. Then, at the last moment, I scored a USA Today assignment to interview Craig at the Casino Royale junket, and I re-purposed some of my interview material with the other five for the first and only piece featuring all six actors. I subsequently interviewed Craig again at the Quantum junket. Interviewing all the Bonds has been a journalistic highlight: they were all friendly and gracious with their time, and I learned a lot about their individual approaches and challenges and highlights. So, with the 50th anniversary approaching, I thought it would be fun and instructive to use my interview material as the basis of a book-length exploration of how Bond has evolved, so that’s how I came to write James Bond Unmasked, using my interview material combined with blow by blow plot synopses and commentaries about each film. I thought it would be a handy reference for the casual fan and I’m grateful that Charles Helfenstein (The Making of The Living Daylights and The Making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service) agreed to publish the book. I’m currently working on a Skyfall chapter for an updated e-book edition that will be available on Amazon in the fall.

Duncan: Twelve years ago in my job interview with publisher Benedict Taschen, he said, “I’ve always wanted to do a big James Bond book,” so it was an idea that had always been there. Then over three years ago he brought it up again, and a couple of months later I got a call from Eon asking if we’d like to do the book for the 50th anniversary of Bond. I said, “Sure, when did Benedict contact you?” But he hadn’t. Taschen and Eon had the same idea at the same time. It was one of those great moments of synchronicity. There have been hundreds of books published about James Bond, and I thought that maybe the world did not need another one. But Eon said that we could have complete access to their vast archive – over a million photos, and over 100 filing cabinets – so I thought that maybe I could find something new for fans to read. I spent thirty months researching the archives, and decided to present the book as an oral history of how the films are made. I think the resulting book, The James Bond Archives, gives an accurate picture of the inventiveness, perseverance, and humor the cast and crew needed to employ to get the movies onto the screen, on schedule, and hopefully under budget. Although James Bond is the figurehead of the series, he is supported by a vast number of people, and I wanted to explain how the series works, and why it works.

Helfenstein: I suppose the polite word is passion. More accurately obsession. I wanted to research my favorite Bond films in extreme detail – from the story’s origin in the notebooks and manuscripts of Ian Fleming, through to the screenwriting stage, including the many interesting alternate scripts that were written but not filmed, through the casting and pre-production, the location and studio filming, on through post-production, release and marketing, and finally how the film altered the Bond series history. When we “consume” a Bond film as viewers, we have a finished product. All the creative decisions have been made. I wanted to shine a spotlight on the remarkable journey a Bond film takes to the screen, and the reasons and influences behind those creative decisions.

O’Connell: I had been toying with writing a reappraisal of the series. But that could have been a very dry opinion piece and no one wants that. So when I bit the bullet and saw the personal story of a pop culture childhood flanked by 007, dads, sons, chauffeurs, the Broccolis and a Roger Moore fixation staring me in the face it suddenly fell into place. Of course the fiftieth anniversary presented a publishing window, but my publishers and I always said that need not be make or break. In the end, it proved perfect timing. But you cannot plan for that. Finally, I believe the number of films in the Bond series greatly supports people’s fascination and fondness for them. It is easy to become a fan of a series that has so many episodes to discover. I wanted to write a book that looked at the life of being a fan from the perspective of each film, hence the title Catching Bullets.

Pfeiffer: I actually wrote two official Bond books. I had become friendly with Cubby in 1989 and he was eager to read a book about John Wayne that I had done, as he liked Duke very much. Upon reading it, he asked me to write a history of the 007 films. It was quite an honor. I asked my friend Phil Lisa to co-author with me and the response to the book was very good. It was titled either The Incredible World of 007 or The Incredible World of James Bond...believe it or not, I can’t remember. But it was a great deal of fun to do. We went to Cubby’s house in Beverly Hills to interview him and spent a wonderful afternoon there. The second book, The Essential James Bond, was done at the suggestion of myself and Dave Worrall. I think it came out in the late 1990s but it was reprinted and updated after that. It was phenomenally successful and actually made the bestseller list in the UK. Due to some rights issues between Eon and the publishing company, it hasn’t been updated since but I probably should pursue having a new edition put out at some point in the future. Dave and I don’t do many books any more because our magazine, Cinema Retro, takes up so much of our time.

Rubin: I had started to get a reputation in film history circles as someone who could do original research, particularly from the articles on 1950s science fiction classics that I was writing for Cinefantastique magazine in Chicago. I would interview the original filmmakers for classics like Forbidden Planet, War of the Worlds, Them! and The Day the Earth Stood Still. I would also try to collect rare behind-the-scenes stills to help tell the story. Having purchased John Brosnan’s excellent book, James Bond in the Cinema, I realized that there was very little behind-the-scenes information on a series that by 1977 was nearly two decades old. I realized that there was an opportunity to be the first to chronicle the history of the James Bond films. I dove right into the research and received excellent initial cooperation from Cubby and Michael. Although we had a falling out, my first book, The James Bond Films: A Behind-the-Scenes History was a success as was the follow-up, The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia.

Scivally: I co-authored James Bond: The Legacy with John Cork for a simple reason: I was asked. Being a huge Bond fan, there was no way I was going to say no.

Worrall: Lee (Pfeiffer) and I had the knowledge and passion, which we wanted to share with others at a time when no serious Bond film book had been written.

Coate: Do you approve of the way the 007 movies have been handled on their Blu-ray release? Any thoughts on the 50th anniversary boxed set?

Cork: Ha! I don’t get to approve or disapprove! It’s great they are all out on Blu-ray. I would have loved to have done rebuilds on all the documentaries that were not rebuilt to HD 16:9 in 2008, and I would have loved for all the special features my company produced to have been on the Casino Royale Blu-ray, but these are quibbles. Overall, it is a pretty spectacular release.

Desowitz: I thought it was great to have a Blu-ray box set of all the films and have since added Skyfall to the placeholder to complete the filmography. I think the HD upgrade has made for superior home entertainment viewing and that the late John Lowry did a tremendous job overseeing the digital work. I wish there would’ve been more 50th anniversary material and it would’ve been ideal to have the previous bonus material remastered in HD.

Helfenstein: I’m pleased the films are all available in high definition in an attractive package, though I am a bit disappointed that supplementary materials were not presented in high definition. I contributed on some of the supplementary materials for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, including the documentary on the aerial filming, which came from my collection. Some of my Fleming collection can be seen in the Fleming documentary on The Living Daylights disc. I was also disappointed at some of the odd Photoshopped images on the inside and outside of the packaging of the set.

O’Connell: I am never one to get excited about being able to own films again I already own. Apart from completist reasons (which is exactly why box-sets sell). But saying that, I was kindly given one of the Bond Blu-ray sets and it is a gorgeous representation and record of fifty years of 007. The individual menus design and sections could have benefited from more of a visual flourish, but it is the films themselves where the value of such a set comes alive. When watching the 1980s Moore films I felt vaguely reminded of seeing them for the first time with a depth and color to even fairly innocuous scenes teleporting me instantly back to the Regal Cinema, Cranleigh. With a beautifully rendered set like this you really see and hear the creative decisions of everyone involved on a Bond. In reproducing the series in such a contemporary way, they curiously become the best time capsules of what these Bond movies were in their day.

Pfeiffer: Regarding the Blu-rays, I’m embarrassed to say I haven’t watched any… except I caught the end of Thunderball on Blu-ray. The others still sit here sealed. It’s not a lack of interest, but a lack of time. We get inundated with DVDs to review for our magazine and the Cinema Retro web site and there aren’t enough hours in the day to get to them all. Consequently, I have almost no time to revisit movies I’ve seen many times. Some day, I’ll have to make time for an all-day Bond Blu-ray marathon.

Rubin: I’m not really a techie when it comes to quality of the image, etc. But I believe the Bonds have always been in good technical hands when it came to distribution. John Cork’s documentaries have been a first class special feature and a pleasure to watch.

Worrall: Apart from Skyfall, I have not had time to watch them. However, it was a good marketing ploy, as many people I know bought the boxed set as they had never bought a Bond film on DVD before.

Coate: Which actor is the best James Bond?

Burlingame: All six have displayed great strengths and the occasional weakness. I like them all to varying degrees, although I think Timothy Dalton tried to hew closer to the Ian Fleming conception of the character than his predecessor; and I suspect that Daniel Craig will someday be listed as the only one who can touch, and maybe even better, what Sean Connery did with his initial performances as Bond.

Cork: Ha, again! I go round and round on how to answer this question. I love Connery’s Bond, but would he have been right in The Spy Who Loved Me? No. I am at a point where I just embrace them all.

Desowitz: For me Connery will always be the best: he gave us something extraordinarily sexy and dangerous, a fun combination of upper class and working class sensibilities that touched a cultural nerve. Bond never would’ve lasted if he had been played by anyone else.

Duncan: There is no “best” since it is all a matter of personal preference, and each actor has his own interpretation. The early Sean Connery films show Bond as a lean hunter, and feel close to the Fleming Bond. George Lazenby had the best story, and did everything right, but suffered in comparison to Connery. If he had continued, Lazenby, with director Peter Hunt, would have made a sharper, muscular, and perhaps darker series of films. Roger Moore was flippant and good fun, making hard work seemingly effortless. Timothy Dalton was closer to Fleming’s Bond, but the audience didn’t seem ready for his intense performance. It’s a pity because he has some great moments, especially in Licence to Kill. Pierce Brosnan combined the suave wit of Roger Moore with the grit of Sean Connery and I’m sure that for many he is the ideal film Bond. Daniel Craig’s Bond is being formed by his experiences over the course of the movies, much as in the novels, and this is one of the reasons audiences find his interpretation has a pleasing psychological complexity.

Helfenstein: The safe answer is Sean Connery. My answer is it depends on your mood, and Cubby Broccoli alluded to this when he said, “Each generation finds what it needs in him.” Can I have Sean’s charisma, George’s swagger, Roger’s humor, Timothy’s intensity, Pierce’s charm, and Daniel’s physique all rolled into one?

O’Connell: The best should always be whoever we have now. That never bodes well for the more recent predecessors, but neither does forever pinning the character of Bond back to the mid-1960s and a very different era of screen heroism and masculinity (which was itself rooted in Fleming’s early 1950s thoughts on the same). Some Bonds are played by movie stars (Brosnan, Moore, Connery) and others are played by movie actors (Dalton). But Daniel Craig is possibly the first to straddle both. And he does so with ease – cleverly and carefully making the drives and passions of a very internal character the most external they have ever been. Like a vintage champagne – not quite vintage the initial year it is produced – I believe Daniel Craig will be one of the defining Bonds. Unlike any Bond actor before him Daniel Craig emerges as less a movie star fulfilling a tempting contract and more of a movie actor with a creative ownership and pride over the character and the direction of the franchise like never before. It was Craig who approached Sam Mendes. It was Craig who championed Adele and was grinning beside her like a schoolboy when she bagged the Golden Globe. And it will be Craig who no doubt has a necessary say on what happens withBond 24.

Pfeiffer: Asking which actor is the “best” Bond results in a politically correct answer: they are all good in their own way. Sentimentally, those of us who grew up in the 60s inevitably believe Connery is and always will be “The Man.” However, I think all of the actors were excellent in their own way. In terms of dramatic skill, I’d have to rate Daniel Craig as the best of the group.

Rubin: You generally favor the Bond you grew up with, so I tend to extoll the virtues of Sean Connery who brought a great deal of panache and sex appeal, let alone the two-fisted machismo that Harry and Cubby required of their lead. However, I am a huge fan of Daniel Craig, who has brought a ton of gravitas to the role of Bond, along with a great deal of physicality that matches Connery frame by frame.

Scivally: I feel there is no “best.” Each actor who has played the role has been right for the era in which he took it on. My favorite is Sean Connery, but I believe that Connery’s interpretation of the character would not have worked in the 70s and early 80s, when Roger Moore struck just the right note of self-mockery for the lighter-toned entries in the series. As action films became grittier, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig all fit the tenor of their times.

Worrall: The one suited to the style of the moment.

Coate: Who is the best 007 villain?

Burlingame: I’ve always liked Gert Frobe as Auric Goldfinger, so bizarre (for 1964) and completely believable as the mastermind of a brilliant if mad scheme. That’s tough to pull off.

Cork: I love Goldfinger for so many reasons, but it is hard to top the cast in From Russia With Love, and Silva was fantastic!

Desowitz: Goldfinger was the most fun villain we love to hate the most. The golf match and laser scenes are the best cat-and-mouse games between Bond and his nemesis.

Duncan: I love the way that Auric Goldfinger is the hero of his own life, and looks down upon the troublesome James Bond as a minor player. Goldfinger is not interested in Bond until it becomes apparent Bond may have information that interfere with his plans. He dialogue and attitude are great fun to watch, and beyond cliché. Well written and well played. The Bond villain is now a tricky character to write because so many have come before, and been played so well. Elektra King is the best of the modern villains because of her ambiguity, the way in which she is both soft and evil at the same time. It could also have something to do with my crush on Sophie Marceau.

Helfenstein: Ernst Stravro Blofeld. Four men have played him, five if you count John Hollis, six if you count Anthony Dawson. The same number of men as Bond. Every hero needs an arch enemy, and Blofeld is the textbook definition of a super villain.

O’Connell: Until recently I would have easily have claimed Charles Gray’s Blofeld or Christopher Walken’s Max Zorin. I adore Gray’s banter and poise – all tinged with a suggestion of tedium at the ineptitude of the world’s superpowers. And Walken has those rolling eyes doing all the work as his foppish frame strives to gentrify a botched Nazi experiment. But now I would have to circle Javier Bardem’s Raoul Silva. It feels kneejerk to pin him as the best 007 villain, but if anyone put the Persian cat amongst the SPECTRE pigeons it was Bardem in Skyfall. I remember seeing it for the first time with Mark Gatiss (who is steeped in the history of British horror literature and cinema). We both looked to each other in shocked awe at Silva’s entrance, the lasciviousness of his delivery (“we can either eat each other” – cue a knowing smirk) and a compelling through-line that was damning Silva as much as asking us to sympathize with him. The character is proper creepy. The literal jaw-dropping moment really got under my skin (though that could be the result of my own childhood dental work traumas). There was a baroque grotesqueness and horror to Silva which the Bond series has not really done before (aside from maybe Mendes’ clear influence and favorite, Live and Let Die). Silva is testament to the Craig era and a marvelous junction of writer, director and actor pulling off what, on paper, could have been all ham and no bite. Silva has both.

Pfeiffer: My favorite “main villain” has always been Gert Frobe as Goldfinger, but for “supporting villain” it’s Robert Shaw’s Red Grant… he’s the only baddie who you thought might actually kill Bond.

Rubin: Goldfinger was, to me, the quintessential obsessed villain. Of course, everything about the film, Goldfinger, is just about perfect. Hard to believe that they were ready to shelve it, in favor of Thunderball.

Scivally: My personal favorite villain is Goldfinger. Gert Frobe was a superb actor, and brought an energy to his villainy that made it seem like cracking good fun.

Worrall: I preferred Goldfinger, Largo and You Only Live Twice’s Blofeld. Larger then life, but believable. However, the villains in all of the Craig Bond films have been terrific.

Coate: Best Bond girl?

Burlingame: Pussy Galore.

Cork: I always go with Ursula Andress as Honey Rider, but so many of them get my pulse to rise.

Desowitz: Mrs. Bond, Diana Rigg, the former Mrs. Peel, is my favorite. She matches the spirit and romance and tragedy that underlies Bond.

Duncan: The Bond template requires Bond to meet a good girl and a bad girl, and invariably the bad girls are much more interesting – they are sexy, independent, intelligent, fierce and, most importantly, more fun. It seems to me that Bond has a much better time with the bad girls rather than the wimpy good girls. But there are a few very capable, intelligent, fierce, funny good girls in the series, most notably Pam Bouvier in Licence to Kill, Natalya in GoldenEye, Wai Lin in Tomorrow Never Dies, and Jinx in Die Another Day.

Helfenstein: Diana Rigg as Tracy. Untouchable in the rankings of Bond girls. The only woman that Bond would hang up the PPK for.

O’Connell: Without a hesitation, Maud Adams’s Octopussy. I am biased in all sorts of ways (this author was very obsessed by that film and leading lady) but if anyone channels that classical Bond glamour tinged with a bit of Fleming autumnal regret and experience, it is Maud’s Octopussy. A good Bond woman should tell us about Bond himself. The best 007 leading ladies – Diana Rigg, Honor Blackman, Michelle Yeoh, Eva Green, Bérénice Marlohe and Maud – have all laid bare the whims and wiles of Bond way before they let us into themselves. And Maud was and still is a very elegant, dignified ambassador for the series. It was no accident she was invited back to test other Bonds and of course complete her own 007 film trilogy. I grinned like a mad Mr. Wint all weekend when she said she would gladly write a few words for my book.

Pfeiffer: My favorite Bond girl is and always will be Ursula Andress… you just can’t compete with that iconic introduction.

Rubin: Claudine Auger as Dominique Derval. Best wardrobe or, should we say, lack of wardrobe.

Scivally: The first Bond film I saw in a theater was The Spy Who Loved Me, and Barbara Bach’s Anya Amasova remains my favorite Bond girl, because she held her own against Roger Moore’s 007. But, as an Avengers fan, I also like Diana Rigg’s Tracy di Vicenzo – more because I like Rigg than because I like the character.

Worrall: The one with the biggest chest! No, seriously; Eva Green in Casino Royale was brilliant, as was Diana Rigg in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Coate: Best theme song?

Burlingame:We Have All the Time in the World by John Barry and Hal David, sung by Louis Armstrong in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Cork: Why pick favorites? Paul McCartney’s Live and Let Die was one of the reasons I became a fan. Goldfinger, The Look of Love, Nobody Does It Better; this was the soundtrack to my life. Heck, I love Where Has Everybody Gone and Another Way to Die! It just depends too much on my mood. Some days are a We Have All the Time in the World day; some days are Mister Kiss Kiss Bang Bang day!

Desowitz: The Bond Theme. It personifies everything about Bond and the moment you hear it, fifty years of memories are instantly recalled.

Duncan: My son loves Madonna’s theme for Die Another Day, which a lot of fans dislike. My son loves it because it’s the only theme that’s not a power ballad. Madonna’s theme song is a modern song, with beats and electronic stuff that I know nothing about. Curiously, it also works well with the title sequence – which shows Bond being tortured using scorpions. For me, the theme song has to work with the title sequence, within the film, and not necessarily work alone on the radio. The best two are Goldfinger, where director Guy Hamilton made Shirley Bassey hit certain words and phrases in sync with the images, and Skyfall, where the Adele’s song invokes both the mood of the moment, and foreshadows the story to come.

Helfenstein:Goldfinger. As Marvin Hamlisch once said, if you’re dead, you wake up for the opening horn blast of Goldfinger.

O’Connell: I think Bassey’s Diamonds are Forever is a flawless piece of movie music – speaking volumes about the wit, sexuality and twilight world of Bond, his women and foes. And All Time High reminds me of falling in love with Bond music via my Dad’s car stereo and a soundtrack cassette from Cubby’s office. But Duran Duran’s A View to a Kill is the one for me. It was the first time I was aware that a Bond song had a cult, drive and cache of its own – one which was my first indicator of the size and scale of the cultural phenomenon of Bond. The song was everywhere in the hot London summer of 1985 and is a decade defining hit, with or without Bond.

Pfeiffer: Favorite song is Goldfinger – nothing original about that, but You Only Live Twice is a close second.

Rubin:Goldfinger.

Scivally: The best theme song is The James Bond Theme from Dr. No, but I also like the instrumental theme of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and the powerful vocals of Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me and The World is Not Enough.

Worrall:From Russia With Love thru You Only Live Twice are inseparable. Skyfall is pretty close, too.

Coate: Best 007 gadget?

Burlingame: The original Aston Martin DB5.

Cork: While I love Little Nellie, I could see crashing it at high speed. The rocket-belt would get me killed. I’d love to see all guns made signature guns, so that would be my most favored to become real. But for me personally, I’d like the mini-rebreather. How cool to be able to snorkel, see something interesting and just have that little gadget in a swim-trunk pocket? That’s the one I’d use.

Desowitz: The Aston Martin DB5. It’s the perfect extension of Bond’s personality, and its return and destruction in Skyfall had palpable emotion tied to it. In fact, losing the car is the only thing that angers Craig’s Bond.

Duncan: The only answer to this is the Aston Martin DB5, although I often harbored dreams of owning a Lotus Esprit and visiting faraway exotic islands, where I would meet Ursula Andress and/or Raquel Welch.

Helfenstein: The jet pack. I defy you to find a cooler image than Connery wearing the jet pack on the Thunderball poster.

O’Connell: Can I claim the DB5? It is an extension of Bond and his tailoring, with its silvery grey suit, side gill pockets and bullet-diverting lapels. Like Bond, it can be regenerated, says “007” quicker than any Walther PPK or glass of Diet Vesper and is a bespoke, yet totally cinematic fiction (DB5s do not outrun Ferraris!). That moment when Craig pulls off the cover in the London lock-up to reveal the glistening DB5 got the biggest applause at the premiere.

Pfeiffer: The most iconic gadget has to be the ejector seat in the Aston Martin DB5. I remember how the audience howled in delight and surprise when it was utilized.

Rubin: The Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger. Thank God that Bond’s Bentley “had seen its day.”

Scivally: The Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger has to be the best gadget, because it set the standard that all other Bond films would follow.

Worrall: The Aston Martin DB5, obviously.

Coate: And… best 007 movie?

Burlingame: I’m very fond of the sole Lazenby film, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. But from the Connery era, it would have to be Goldfinger; from the Moore era, probably For Your Eyes Only; from Dalton, The Living Daylights; Brosnan, Tomorrow Never Dies; and Craig, Casino Royale. As you can imagine, musical choices and approaches influence my thinking.

Cork: I know it sounds like a wimp-out, but I have numerous favorite Bond films. I think the first four are great films. They created a cinematic identity for James Bond that endures to this day. Without those first four films (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball), it is unlikely we would still be watching James Bond films. To be more specific, if You Only Live Twice had been made in 1967 as the first James Bond film, even with all its spectacle and production value, I don’t think the series would have endured for very long. I think Skyfall and Casino Royale are brilliant films that both honor and re-define the Bond genre. Having a thirteen-year-old son, it has been great to hear him and his friends talk about Bond and Skyfall, to see how that film works for them, just as it was great to sit in theaters and listen to audiences react to the film. I don’t know that there has ever been a better-directed Bond film than Skyfall. It really is a fantastic film. But my favorite? Some nights I want to watch Live and Let Die, or On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Some nights I want to watch the 1967 Casino Royale. I don’t really try to rank them. That always frustrates folks, but it is just the way it is.

Desowitz: Even though Goldfinger was my first Bond movie and had a great impact on me, my favorite is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service because it took Bond to a whole new emotional place. It didn’t matter that Sean Connery wasn’t Bond, his presence still hung over the franchise and George Lazenby, despite his youth and inexperience, provided a fresh vitality and vulnerability as 007, falling in love for the first time, and Diana Rigg, still evoking memories of Mrs. Peel from The Avengers, was a wonderful match. Even Telly Savalas shined as Blofeld, even though he seemed miscast as well. Peter Hunt found the right mixture of action and drama in Fleming’s best book and made what I still think is a transcendent Bond film.

Duncan: I have grown up watching Bond movies, so obviously my concerns and my appreciation of the movies has changed during this period. So although I first loved the humor of Diamonds are Forever and The Spy Who Loved Me, I also loved the gadgets, the stunts, the woman, and the sheer chutzpah of the productions. Now almost fifty, I think that the film that really sticks out for me is Casino Royale. It has character and story as well as all the expected Bond trappings. Everything about that movie just clicks.

Helfenstein:On Her Majesty’s Secret Service: the only Bond film that deserves the term masterpiece. Sumptuous scenery, hyper-kinetic action, a diabolical villain, an ethereal Diana Rigg, and a cocky Bond devastated by a gut punch of a tragic ending. Ian Fleming’s world perfectly captured on film.

O’Connell:On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Obviously Goldfinger and From Russia With Love are the golden standards, the templates which saw the Bond movies carved forever on the tree of popular culture. But Secret Service proved the series could be both franchise and individual episode. It also demonstrated how it could recast, regenerate and survive. It is a Bond film where everyone – the designers, songsmiths, directors, stunt teams and editors – are at the peak of their game. It also, of course, gave some soul and even lyricism to the 007 project. James Bond may not want to let us into his emotions but the James Bond films can. And to achieve all of this as the suited hero was fleeing out of fashion is another tick in its favor.

Pfeiffer: My favorite Bond film is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service… beautifully scripted and featuring bold direction by Peter Hunt plus what is arguably John Barry’s best score. I also think George Lazenby did a terrific job, given the fact he had no acting experience.

Rubin: Ironically, Goldfinger was the first Bond movie I ever saw and I still consider it the best. In pure tone, excitement and humor, it had all the right touches. A truly perfect Bond film.

Scivally: My favorite James Bond movies are the two that involve the least gadgetry and are the closest in spirit to the Ian Fleming books they’re based on: From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. From Russia With Love has a superb cast and feels more like an espionage thriller than a comic book spy adventure, while On Her Majesty’s Secret Service presents George Lazenby’s more vulnerable interpretation of Bond, has a terrific ski chase sequence, and features Diana Rigg as Traci di Vicenzo, the only woman able to get Bond to commit to marriage (although his pending nuptials don’t keep him from taking advantage of the crumpet at Piz Gloria!). That said, I think Goldfinger is an immensely entertaining film that still holds up beautifully nearly fifty years after its release, and defined the James Bond formula for most of the films that followed.

Worrall: Impossible to say. Depends what mood I’m in. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Casino Royale, Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice and Skyfall are in my top five.

Coate: And, finally, do you think we will live to see an era where there are no more James Bond movies?

Burlingame: Not in our lifetimes. The fact that Skyfall made $1 billion worldwide only suggests that filmgoers’ appetite for Daniel Craig, and prominent filmmakers tackling Bond stories, hasn’t diminished at all. I see the franchise continuing for decades, very likely with a new generation of Broccolis at the helm.

Cork: That question is far above my pay grade. In 1962/3, no one could have seen where Bond would go. I have no clue what the next fifty years will bring!

Desowitz: No, I think Bond is in good hands with Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, and when the time comes, the mantle will be properly handed down. And the franchise is too much of a moneymaker for the industry to let it die. And there will always be a fan base to keep Bond alive.

Duncan: Bond is a pure wish fulfillment character. All the men want to be like Bond, and all the women want and desire Bond. Bond lives life to the full – he enjoys the sensuality of food and women, and revels in the tension of gambling and racing fast cars – because his dangerous job means that each day could be his last. Characters who are unambiguous about their course in life are very attractive. We would all like to live life to the full like James Bond, so I see no reason why Eon should stop making movies about him and his adventures.

Helfenstein: If I have to resort to making them with action figures, there will always be James Bond movies.

O’Connell: Only if hell freezes over. Which will then make a superb location for a Bond film. So – no – evolution won’t actually let that happen! Of course it would be naïve to assume they will last forever (and I have had that selfish thought, “but what if I die and the films continue… ?!”). I don’t think Eon and the Bond camp look too far ahead. They never take anything for granted. Even talking to Barbara Broccoli on the eve of Skyfall’s release suggested an understandably guarded stance on assuming success and jumping the gun on any future plans. The best hope for Bond’s future is perhaps evidenced in the past and present of how these films are made. Who learns the ropes on them, who understands those vital notions of integrity, character and Fleming… it all strengthens the generations holding up this franchise. That is its best hope of continuing.

Pfeiffer: As I’ve written before, the only constants in life are “death, taxes and the next James Bond movie.”

Rubin: There are only three things certain in life – death, taxes and the James Bond movies. I will guarantee that. James Bond is forever.

Scivally: I think it is inevitable that the series will eventually run its course, but I believe that time is a long, long ways off. So far, the Bond producers have managed to keep the series both popular and profitable. As long as that remains the case, the movies will continue to be produced.

Worrall: Depends on how old you are! I reckon, if Eon persuade Chris Nolan to direct Bond 25, which would be Craig’s fifth, and possible last outing, they might sell-out and retire like Lucas did with his Star Wars franchise. Without Barbara and Michael at the helm I do not think the series could continue in the same vein that we have become used to.